Slashdot Mirror
Have You Paid Your Bertelsmann Tax Today?
Mwongozi writes "Germany is planning to slap new taxes on computer, telecommunications and Internet products to ensure that authors are properly rewarded for the use of their work, a newspaper said Wednesday. The Berliner Zeitung said proposals had been drafted requiring manufacturers of goods from computers to printers, modems, compact disc "burners" and other devices to pay royalty fees that would then be forwarded to music and film companies." My guess is that Bertelsmann, the world's third largest media company, has a little something to do with this. In the U.S., any devices intended for digital audio are already taxed similarly to the above proposal but general-purpose computing devices are not. (Though the RIAA sought to include them too.) Has anyone considered what an extraordinary situation it is where government tax collectors are collecting taxes which are funneled straight to corporations?
According to the RIAA, paragraph 1008 does not apply to sound recordings stored on a computer. "The difference between copying to cassette (for instance) as opposed to a computer hard drive is that audio cassette players (as well as Minidisc and DAT players) are devices covered by the AHRA and a computer is not. The specific reasons are technical but boil down to this: The AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-R drive, are not covered by the AHRA."
I cannot imagine a tax structure (other than our own) more pandering to big business and the ultra-rich than a flat tax.
I think that a progressive tax is needed.
Take Bill Gates for example, he siphons the labor of thousands of students educated in state-run colleges and institutions. These students pay tuition, but a vast number of them get subsidies from the govt to attend school.
Since the average American is not as rich as Bill Gates, a flat tax leaves a disproportionate responcibility on the bottom 99.9%. Yet, Bill Gates undeniably reaps a huge personal benefit from public education. In fact he reaps a much larger benefit that I do.
I hope we can all agree that public Universities are a good thing (an educated population is an effective population). So Bill Gates recieves (other that the warm fuzzies I get about higher education) a larger chunk of that pie than I do, yet under a flat tax, we pay the same.
Fees charged for services rendered. That should be pretty straitforward right?
I know the tired arguements about tax loopholes, increased cost of operation of the IRS, and the "man, doesn't it suck to do these complex taxes" arguement. However, the numbers do not add up. It does not save enough money, to offset the need for progressivity, and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You did know that the United States have the largest divide between the rich and poor of any industrialized nation, right?
I agree that these are all downsides to the current tax scheme (which I obviously disagree with vehemently).
The tax system needs to be vastly simplified. I don't see that a sliding tax scale has to be much more complicated than a flat tax, and it doesn't have the truely nasty effects that a flat tax would have.
Most people don't understand that a flat tax does not distribute the tax burden equally. With a flat tax, the less you make, the higher percentage that you pay. That doesn't seem to foster much equality or even intellegence.
You talked unfavorably about socialism, but with class warfare tactics like the flat tax idea, we're lucky that our proletariat hasn't already seized the factors of production from their bourgeoisie oppressors.
As for me, I'm taking the middle ground and voting for Nader. He really has some good ideas about making government more understandable and accessable. I suspect that most libertarians want the same basic things that Ralph Nader and the Greens support, but they've got vastly different ideas about getting it done.
For the record, Nader and the Greens do not simply support big government. In many cases they support downsizing. Check it out http://www.votenader.org
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Yes, you know what he meant, beacuse he can't concieve of any third state between "you steal from me" and "I steal from you" - the idea of "we neither of us steal, we trade" just hasn't occurred to him.
Besides, technically, Socialism for Corporations is called "mercantilism".
There was an episode of the simpsons where Homer said that he only pays the "Homer Tax". You see, the MPAA was "preparing" our minds with messages in our favorite programs to prepare us for content taxes.
Right...
So, for people in my situation, (doing scientific research) who _need_ CD-R's, we're expected to give most of our grant over to computer games companies?
For background, I'm working on an electrical ceramic. I generate lots of data, as most of it can only be sensible captured in picture form (1Meg per picture), and processed down later. In two days on the microscope, I managed to fill a blank Zip disk (100 Meg) [0].
I get two days a week for data collection, so this means that over the past six weeks, I've got 1 CD full of raw data. Were I to continue this work for a full PhD, I make that 24 CD's full. Or 820 pounds (just under 1/3 of the research grant) to him. Because I might be priateing games.
To him, I say, get a life.
[0] Ok, particulry productive day, normally it's about 60 Meg.
There is a tax on blank tapes and blank audio CDRs so that the music industry can make up all the extra money they are losing to piracy. So who pays? The honest people do. They figure since you are buying a blank tape / CDR, you are going to use it for piracy.
Fine. Lock me up then. I am obviously guilty until proven innocent. We should all be locked up for using the internet. If we are using the internet that means we are either crackers / hackers / pirates / copy-infringers / pediphiles / perverts / rapist / murdering thugs.
I am sick of the mentality. Since 1% are doing it might as well punish the other 99%
God, it makes me sick. We are losing more and more of our liberties everyday and 99% of the population is oblivious to that fact.
This
... when he said Corporatism is Socialism for Corporations.
under
USCode Title 17 Chapter 10 - digital audio recording devices and media Subchapter A - Defintions (too lazy to learn how to annotate correctly)
(4)
Which is cutting the fine print pretty thin. What makes this curious is that computers are now marketed as home audio devices for "downloading digital music", just watch your nearest Dell commercial. See how easy lobbying is, you only need to change a few words to get what you want.
--
+&x
In the mean time, I don't feel like paying to support the thing I hate because I might want to make a CD of my grandfather's pictures.
Despite this, I can also share the indignation of those who are revolted at the prospect of paying for their fair use of the music they bothered to buy. So yes, all around you are a TROLL
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Machiavelli didn't warn *us*, silly boy...
He taught them. *grin* You forget your place.
You aren't paying anything on CD-R's. You are paying it if you were to buy a Music CD-R. If you go to Best Buy or or Circuit City you'll find they have "Music CD-Rs". These are usually 2-3 times as much as a normal data grade CD-R. They have some pre-pressed data in them that indicated that they are Music CD-Rs. Although your computer CDR burner doesn't care which one you use a stand alone CD-Recorder (such as the ones sold buy Phillips, or Pioneer) will only work with the "Music CDR's".
Well, to my knowledge Germany doesn't fall under the US code, so what rights that offers is irrelevant to the `Bertelsmann Tax'.
Before Chancellor Kohl very kindly went and screwed up the economy of West Germany by 'reunifying' it with East Germany, American corps needed all the help they could get. The only reason the US is doing so well at the moment is that the only 2 countries big enough and technologically advanced enough to compete effectively, West Germany and Japan, made a hash of their economies at the beginning of the 90s. See how well the US does when they come out of their present recessions.
What a load of rubbish. Probably true 30-40 years ago though, but nowadays almost everyone goes through some sort of further education. The universities are heaving with people too.
Besides which, haven't most people developed their writing skills before they reach the age of 16?
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a bogus news story about taxing blank digital media. It was born out of my blinding frustration that, in what should be a conspicuous, informed public debate, all the wrong people are being listened to.
I had no idea I was predicting the future.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
To correct the poster: We Americans pay dramatically less per unit of gasoline because the government taxes it at much lower rate than the various European governments do. Sure, maybe half the US price for retail gas is taxes -- but that figure is more like 80% in Europe.
I don't dispute the poster's contention that, like in most countries, billions of tax dollars are funneled to U.S. corps, directly or indirectly. But the price of gas has nothing to do with this assertion. The differential in the price of gas has to do with government decisions abouttax policy, not redistribution policy.
No it wouldn't. If I didn't like that a hotel charged me because others had stolen towels in the past, I could choose not to stay in that hotel, or If I felt strongly enough, I could even start my own hotel where people had to bring their own towels. or, I could develop some way to make cheaper towels so it didn't matter. Hopefully you get my point: The consumer has choice, whatever I do or whatever the hotels independently decide to do.
On the other hand, if a government charges me for copying music etc. that I haven't copied, I can hardly choose another government, can I? and I can't even set up an alternative company who doesn't mind their music being copied because the public would still have to pay the tax on the blank media.
The point here: This kind of tax reduces choise for the consumer. It leaves little room to manoeuvre for new companies with new ideas. It is an ill-concieved quick fix solution to a more than complicated problem.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
As all geeks know, positive feedback systems are inherently(sp?) unstable. Increased output pushes up the input, which increases the output until the system overloads.
The way collected funds are distributed could produce a positive feedback system here could it not? Taxes are collected from all forms of recordable media, but who are they distributed to? If the funds are proportioned according to market share, that means that the largest corps get extra input which will encourage more output which will increase market share....
How much goes to small bands? Can I strum a guitar, call myself a musician, and then lay claim to my share of the taxes? How do you qualify to be a distributor? If I record my guitar strum, put it on a CDR while releasing it as an MP3, do I then qualify as a distributor with the right to lay claim to my fair share of the bounty?
If you divide the booty up by market share, would that be a share of units sold or value of units sold? If I gave away crap in a cereal box, does that increase my market share?
It never ceases to amaze me that legislatures happily pass totally unenforceable laws that create more problems than they solve. Some things just cannot be fixed by edicts from on high.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Listen up , you cannot simultaneously support the actions of RMS and his FSF and critisize governmental intervention in support of IP. They are both cut from the same cloth. Both are, at the heart, socialist interventions. RMS and his uninformed teenage fanclub favor a model of government support, ie. dole, for open source software development. This article is simply about a model of government support, ie. dole, for the industry.
Look at the historical precident in this country for laissez-faire capitalism. We gave rise to the Captains of Industry, Aka the "Robber Barons". Do we really want to repeat those dark days when deregulation was big?
Given a choice between being abused a large, inefficient government that I have the hope of participating in, versus being abused by the efficiency of corporation where votes are bought by dollars, I'll take government any day.
Deregulating an industry does not limit govt payouts, nor does it reconcile the fact that the average American living at the poverty line pays a higher percentage in taxes than your average corporation (average corporations pay between 2%-6%. How much do you pay?).
The corporate welfare structure in the United States is primarily the result of a mush-headed reverse-progressive (regressive?) tax scale that favors large corporation over the small businesses that are the real support for communities.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Seriously: Europe has embraced Open Source, Germany has dumped Windows 2000 (here and here) in some government departments in favor of Linux & Staroffice (yes, on the Desktop!) and there have already been so many rumours about taxing the Internet, taxing Computers, taxing raw CDR media, and so on.
NOTHING of this all will happen. That's because all the "big evil players" will and can not agree on one common path. The minute that most ISPs ban Napster, there will be ISPs advertising "No banning" and charging extra, and gaining customers. The minute somebody imposes a tax on CDR media, there will be cheap imports from South India (or wherever) and nobody will buy the taxed versions any more. (Is anyone in Germany actually buying GEMA-approved CD-Audio media right now?)
Look at CNN (owned by Time Warner, btw.). Did they keep their big mouth shut when Napster was there? NO! They shouted it out for all the world to see: "There's a way to get illegal MP3z on the internet!" Great thing for the mass media: everybody was listening...
Now how much less people would have known about Napster, if CNN had worked together with Time Warner and Sony and all the others to try to SILENTLY counter Napster?
Their diversity is our strength ... and as long as they try to fight everything they don't (cannot) control, I'm not their customer, I'm their enemy. Period.
Home Page
are evil!
Too bad the governments of the world love them so much.
"And they said onto the Lord.. How the hell did you do THAT?!"
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
I could make more money on selling a diamond than most sites on the net.
Respond to s
Most fundamental economic changes have been introduced gradually, in order to minimize the social costs of change (which are many - the dinosaurs you speak of will need unemployment insurance). Look at the growth of world trade, for instance - it has taken decades to get where we are now, and there are still many walls that need to come down.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I'd start tossing things out if I was forced to pay taxes to corporations. Didn't something like this happen in the 1700's?
And now Bertelsmann wants free money.
You're confused about the meaning of the word corporation. In the US, this term means a privately owned business. In the UK, it means a state-owned enterprise (it was formerly applied to city councils, amongst other institutions). Only /.'s pet libertarians would object per se to the use of tax to fund a state-owned organisation.
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
This is just a function of the government and it being By the people, for the people, and for the people, some of those people work for companies and want their share of their government's money.
Respond to s
Sorry, but this is not true. This is part of the drug war propoganda. It's based on the premise that after trying drugs, one will become instantly addicted. It also tries to tell people that drug dealers are completely evil.
The reality of it is that drug dealers either charge a consistant price, the local market price, or some markup based on what they paid. There's no "new customer discount". It simply doesn't happen. There's no "first one's free". A regular customer doesn't see a price increase. If any change, a regular customer sees a price decrease, either to ensure loyalty, or as a gesture of honesty (e.g. "I got this cheaper, so I'm giving it to you for cheaper."), or out of simple kindness for someone that has either made them lots of money or perhaps that they've become friends with.
"First one's free" is a load of crap.
Both sides got their nose bloodied (fortunately for the US, the Brits were stupid enough to get involved on the Continent *again*).
And the Battle of New Orleans was no fault of anybody's but a really good show on the part of the Americans. A ragtag band of Americans dominated the day. At their best when composed of their worst? Wouldn't suprise me at all... *laugh*
Well, if I'm going to be paying for the right to copy music, then morally there is nothing wrong with hitting Napster and leeching away, since I've already paid for the right to do it. This completely removes any moral imperative to respect copyright laws or to ever go buy the CD of an artist that you actually like.
These laws are quite funny. The idea behind them is that you're going to be guilty anyway, that you are going to enfringe the law, so you have to pay. And then if you actually infringe the law and get caught, you'll have to pay damages and possibly face prison?
Ok, let's pay those criminals (recording industry) their tax, but I want to be able to do whatever I want with their "content".
Ok, so you're getting ripped off and your publisher is getting ripped off. With taxes like this, your publisher will see some kind of compensation. Any bets on how much will trickle down to you?
I have much more sympathy for the creator than for the companies that do the distribution, yet they're the ones that get the cash. What kind of guarantees are there that they'll handle this fairly?
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
to duplicate copyrighted works? If we've paid a royalty by buying media in Canada or computer equiptment in Germany?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I am not sure this is really true, because I am not sure Title 17 considers a computer to be a digital audio recording device. The definition requires such a device to be designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital audio copies. It is arguable that a PC qualifies. Furthermore, Section 1002 requires all such devices to have copy protection/notification schemes built into them, it being illegal to import/manufacture/distribute devices that don't. Certainly PCs don't qualify here. Are you trying to say it is illegal to sell PCs as we currently know them? Are you arguing that PCs should have such a copy protection device integral to them? Or would you rather want to claim a PC isn't an audio recording device?
I am Jack's writable stack pointer.
That was the RIAA's goal, not Congress' goal. As it turned out, Congress added paragraph 1008 and made the AHRA very consumer friendly, by legalizing all non-commercial copying of music.
However, Napster and Napster users are still infringing according to this document. Read Section 11. Here's the text -
Sec. 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos
(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved -
(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or
(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States, shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.
(b) Definition. - As used in this section, the term ''traffic in'' means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.
(c) Applicability. - This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
(d) State Law Not Preempted. - Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.
It was wishful thinking but the AHRA still screws consumers.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I wonder if anyone else realzes (not saying you don't) how taxes like this totally remove the incentive to create more works. Wouldn't it become more profitable to just sit back and collect taxes and not go through the trouble of creating new content? Isn't that opposite of the point of copyright?
--
+&x
2) Why should the fee go away? Roads and toll bridges require constant, expensive maintenance (to use your example), and people still use VCR's and audio tapes to copy content illegally even after decades - so the "harm" that justifies the fee never really goes away.
Your last paragraph, while rambling, sounds straight out of PoliSci 101 - narrowly focused, well-backed interest groups can make a killing in Washington at the expense of the broader public interest. That's simply an inherent flaw of the political system, and while it ain't perfect, I don't see anything better in use currently.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
We never learn. First the Treaty of Versaille and now this. Once the Germans get tired of it someone will come to power and then they will invade Poland. The government's job is to serve the people not be the accounting department of the RIAA.
Up here, we feed money into an odd version of a copyright clearance center, which distributes it to (music) copyright holders.
This makes things like individuals sharing music with each other financially harmless to the vendors, and allows us to treat copyright as what it is: a "legal fiction", created for a public-policy reason.
Helps keep the rabidly doctrinaire at bay, too (:-))
--davedavecb@spamcop.net
--
Realize that you see maybe $0.50US of the purchase price of that CD. Realize that they're selling it for anywhere from $10-20US and it cost them no more than $1.50US to make the damn thing, in a jewel box with inserts. If you're relying on the "royalties" from CD sales to make you money, you're a fool because only the mega hits make a performer any money at all. Performances are about the only way a musician makes money these days- and depending on the contract with the recording company, you might not make much there either.
This is not to say I condone the copying- it's just that I don't believe for one moment that any artist is really getting much in the way of compensation for that CD I'd buy. (So, I've pretty much quit buying CDs and have stuck to what's already in my library of music and listening to the radio.)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
So .. I can predict that this will move our PC-hardware shops outside germany.
... And thanks to EU-Trading laws its legal to import those from EU-States ...
.. the (german) goverment is killing a whole industry for the sake of some rich bastards wo bought your local politican a new house ;)
Why not order your CD-R's in Luxenbourg ? They don't have this kind of nonsense, and they even have lower Vat
So
Samba Information HQ
...but all the pot hookups at my high school did "first one's free." Of course, that's quite a bit different from street dealers, who don't have personal relationships with new customers. I guess it was more of a friendly courtesy kind of thing than a shrewd, calculating business move; I seem to remember that they did tend to offer better deals to regular customers rather than gouging the poor souls 'addicted' to weed.
88
Further information on this topic may be found here.
A: the corporation. but i'd like to think if i put in 10-14 hours/day on my music, and 0-1 on programming, i might make more playing music than my corp. would.
:)
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
--
Machiavelli just simply gave too much detailed information. Such can be used as a warning, a how-to, and a how-to spot.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
The US gov't does not, and never has, collected any "taxes" that are distributed to artists as royalties. Period, end of story.
Makers of Music Minidisc, DAT Music Tapes, and Music CD-R discs for sale in the US do throw money into the music industry, but it's the same corporate channels that already existed for music royalties.
Sorry, but your information is eight years out of date. Read Title 17 Chapter 10 if you don't believe me.
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a royalty on all blank digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the United States, and handed the money directly over to the RIAA companies.
The money collected is, as mandated by federal law, divided as follows:
(1.75%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Musicians, to be paid to "non-featured" musicians (studio musicians)
(0.92%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, to be paid to "non-featured" vocalists (backup vocalists)
(25.60%) of the royalties are paid to "featured recording artists", including such bands as Metallica.
(38.40%) of the royalties are paid to "copyright owners" (the RIAA companies)
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to "music publishers"
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to music writers, including such bands as Metallica who write their own songs.
This is completely above and beyond the other systems of royalty payments, such as ASCAP, BMI, where the copyright owners go after businesses to get them to sign licensing agreements. In this case, the royalty fee collection system is part of Federal Law.
Incidently, if you're curious as to why downloading from Napster is not illegal, or immoral, read paragraph 1008. This is what you, the consumer got in exchange for a federal law mandating direct payments from your wallet to the RIAA whenever you buy a blank audio CDR.
What's this obsession with free (as in lunch)?
Oftentimes it's not. I'll give you two reasons why I use Napster (and lookalikes) and none of them has to do with money:
(1) It's immediate and effortless. Say a friend tells me "Have you heard Foo Qux? It's an awesome band!" It'll take me five minutes (I have broadband) to check them out and decide if I like them or not. Compare that to buying a CD, especially if Foo Qux isn't all that well known...
(2) There is no good reason (except greed) not to allow me to pick songs (as opposed to albums) I like. From Napster I can pick and choose and most of the time I like 1-2 songs on an album. Should I buy a whole CD just for these 1-2 songs?
What's the best solution for solving the Napster case? Put an 'MP3 tax' in place! That way, some semblance of justice will be served.
Thank you very much, I don't want to have "some semblance of justice". Besides, it's highly doubtful that this will be the "best solution", never mind technically feasibility. Frankly, I think that's one of the worst solutions. And why do you think your music will become free? In countries like Canada that imposed a CD-R tax infringing a copyright didn't become any less of a crime.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Anyone who has studied micro-economics knows that the incedence of tax is not affected by who actualy pays it. Incedence of tax is determined by the price elasticity of demand. A tax on music that is given to the producers of the music (I use producers to mean all those involved in production) does not affect the consumer at all. You are willing to pay a certain price for music or a device to play it, etc. That money goes to the corperation that produced whatever you are buying. The price you are willing to pay includes the tax. When the govenment adds a tax two things happen. Cost to the consumer goes up and profits for the producer go down. The more you are willing to pay for the product, the more the tax effects the consumer.
This tax ensures distrobution of the profts in a certain manner. It gaurantees that background singers, artists, songwriters, etc. each get a certain percent of the royalties from the device that is being taxed. The people who should really be screaming are people like Sony or RCA. They are losing profits to artists and record companies. And if this tax were as otherpeople have sugested, (i.e., a good is taxed and the tax is given to the producers of the good), nothing at all in the market would change. The price to the consumer would stay the same and the profits for the producer would stay the same.
It's not about money. It's about you telling me what I can and can not do with my equipment and other things I own. Why should I pay RIAA racket tax so that I can make a photo CD?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually, it was Sam Lowry, after his second nervous breakdown.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Hmmmm, while I don't doubt that AHRA was not a consumer friendly law, I do doubt that my congressional representative voted for something that had a 'specific goal' of 'destroying the market'. I can't imagine how those debates would go.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
No, there have been historical precidents for this. However, in more recent times, I think that things have changed substantially.
-RickHunter
IMO, Bertelsmann is a monopolist trying to grab as much of the media market as they can, especially in the book arena. They own the largest publishing company and the largest chain bookstore, Random House and Barnes & Noble. They attempted to purchase Ingram Book Company(big distributor-something like 60% of Amazon's books come from Ingram), luckily that was stopped by the antitrust folks in our govt. If they had pulled that off they would have had a complete vertical hold on the book industry - from publishing to distributing to bookselling. They would have profitted from the majority of internet book sales.
They are definitely a company /.ers should know about and be wary of.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I think you'll find that in this day and age, discriminating against a people because of their country of origin and their culture is considered racism.
Hitler also hated people based on their nationality alone you know.
Excuse me? Writers like Tom Clancy, Stephen King and the like get paid the big bucks because they sell a lot. Readers are voting with their pocketbooks. If you don't like their books, don't buy them; if you do, buy their books or borrow them from the library, but don't steal the books.
--meredith
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis
Thus the greater number of people in a class, the greater percentage that their socioeconomic class pays.
So if you want to be nitpicky, I believe that the largest group of americans is technically the lower, middle class, but suffice it to say that things aren't too rosy at the bottom of the bottom either.
You see, the tax burden is still primarily footed by those least able to pay
So, sorry if this was unclear. I thought that I sufficiently prefaced that idea, but I guess you missed it.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
And even if it were, Section 11 prohibits the distribution of digital audio copied recordings. So Napster users who provide access to MP3s are still breaking the law.
If you are going to respond, at least get your facts straight before you do. I'm beginning to think you are just trolling.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
That may have more to do with a hardware based UI, and higher quality cable connections.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
And hiding behind Anonymous Coward status is what?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
No matter what you say about these kind of tax policies, they are fairly common. What is even more sad is they arise out of a genuine concern and a desire to do what is right.
Haha.
The U.S. version of this law, the Audio Home Recording Act, was drafted by the recording industry with the specific goal of destroying the market for home digital audio recorders.
Do what is right, my ass.
I used to work with an ex-defense procurement guy. Since we were both ex military (he army, me navy) one day we got talking about procument issues, and $500 hammers, and $200 toilet seats.
He was able to shed some light onto the pricing issues that made sense to me.
The seats were for a very limited run of production. This drives up cost by itself because the cost of tooling up and doing the run are amortized over the length of the run. Small runs cost much more than larger runs. Economies of scale.
The seats were for P3 aircraft. (P3's are prop driven aircraft used for ocean surveillance, search & rescue, and sub-hunting - the big boom on the tail is the MAD - Magnetic Anomaly Detector used to locate submerged metal objects. P3's are long duration aircraft meant to go out on patrol - I did a fair amount of loose control of P3's) There were all kinds of issues with weight, flammability, durability, etc for aicraft safety. Additionally there were MIL-SPEC requirements to adhere to since it was a _military_ aircraft.
Add all this up and you start to get some unreasonable costs for a lot of reasons that by themselves and in abstract probably made sense.
Dave
http://www.bullnet.com
This has been talked about recently in the EC. Seems that everyone is using every piece of computer equipment to pirate everything under the sun, or so claim BMI and a few other IP holders. But I think some computer groups are starting to fear a large upfront tax causing the consumer market to shrink, so there may be some powerful groups on the side of freedom and /. But BMI has a large influence on german policy, and public debate never comes into it. So expect these new taxes to start slowly in the countries easiest to corrupt (naziland and britland), and then spread to other european countries over the next few years, then the EC will pass the law automatically.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
This tax basically makes the assumption that people who are buying CD-R drives are criminals, who are going to make illigal copies of songs. By taxing CD-R drives, we assume that all buyers are guilty of this and hence must be punished. Does this mean that:
a) People MUST give TAX to big companies to buy certain products, and in return for this they get NOTHING. I think we agree this would be a bad precedent. As a person who once sold drinks for charity, I would like 100% tax for every gallon of water brought by consumers in America, so I can recoup my losses.
or
b) The tax paid to music companies is there to let them recoup expenses from piracy, therefore piracy is OK, as long as you paid tax on your CD-R drive.
Neither situation exactly sounds like a win-win scenario for buisness and consumer, does it?
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
For media, yes, but not for the devices needed to use them...
Maybe I'm nuts, but this strikes me as pointing the way toward a method of ensuring artists get compensated, while at the same time allowing people to freely distribute whatever they want. I would be willing to pay extra $$ on purchases of media and recording equipment if that meant music could be free, and the artists would get compensated. The tax could go into a big fund and artists could get payed based on surveys of how much their music is being downloaded. Same thing for authors. You'd be free to do whatever you wanted with stuff. Of course, this plan still doesn't leave much room for the labels, but who cares?
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Wow! What a little bundle of misinformation and lies you found!
Well, the RIAA certainly doesn't want you to know your rights. However, even if you don't know your rights, you still have to pay the CDR and DAT royalties, so you might as well know.
Rather than explain it myself, here is a quote from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the document in which they reversed the injunction against Napster. They do a good job of explaining the distinction:
The court reached its conclusion that Napster users were engaged in direct infringement in part because
o it ruled (contrary to the section's express terms) that the immunity from suit provided by 17 USC 1008 only applied to actions under the AHRA.
o it ruled that 17 USC 1008's protections only applied to copying by specifically identified devices rather than, as this Court said in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Syst., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9 th Cir. 1999), to all noncommercial copying by consumers. (1)
(1) The court relied on the fact that this Court in Diamond Multimedia had held (in the context of the AHRA's serial copying and royalty provisions) that digital audio recording device did not include computer hard-drives. The court below ignored, however, that 17 U.S.C. 1008
permits non-commercial copying by consumers using either analog or digital audio recording devices or "such a device"; that the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended by that language to immunize all non-commercial copying of music by consumers; that the same Diamond Multimedia Court expressly said that 17 U.S.C. 1008 "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" (180 F.3d at 1079); and that throughout the Diamond Multimedia opinion the Court discusses copying of music using computer hard-drives as AHRA protected activity.
Just screwing the little guy as usual.
On the other hand, once EVERYONE is tried, convicted, and assessed a criminal fine for piracy... EVERYONE may as well pirate. The tax legitimized the crime, IMO.
Dad told me not to worry, because Kopinor is good at getting the money back to their individual members. He is the author of several books, and has had a number of good scholarships from these money, and he said that if I keep up my pace of writing I'll be eligible for a scholarship soon (they count words, pretty much). In spite of that, it doesn't feel right, they are raising money from other people's work, it doesn't matter if I get the money back as a scholarship, it still feels wrong.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I thought it did pass. Check out talk.politics.crypto.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Sorry to say, but corporations are individuals in the eyes of the US Gov't, and have the full rights as individuals (free speech, etc.). See this insightful article for details, but basically, since about 1886, corporations have been granted the rights of individuals. Therefore, the country, in protecting it's corporations, _is_ protecting it's citizens.
Just another way that the ultra-rich (and their families) are kept that way. I don't see that this is such a shock; perhaps you just didn't realize this before...
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Are you saying it's not legal to take towels from hotel rooms?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
There's not much Americans can say about this sort of thing. We keep voting for the same two parties, and when it gets down to it, we keep voting for the candidate who spends the most on ads. (Okay, in all fairness, two-thirds of the electorate votes unthinkingly for their party, and the remaining third votes unthinkingly for whoever spends the most on ads. It's not like Machiavelli didn't warn us about this.)
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
One problem with this type of taxation scheme is that the tax (and subsequent royalties) are not proportional to actual usage of IP. If someone were to buy a CDR solely for the purpose of distributing his/her own software/music/etc, why should that royalty be paid? On the other hand, if someone buys a CDR expressly for the purpose of pirating copyrighted music, he/she may be paying too little. This creates an undesirable situation (from an Economics perspective anyway) where the "good guys" are subsidizing the activities of the "bad guys". Unfortunately, I doubt Germans will see it as anything more than yet another tax levied on them.
There's also the question of how much of that "royalty" actually gets to the artist, and how that is apportioned. Do artists with more sales get more subsidy, or should it be inversely proportional to sales? And how much of that money will be skimmed by the royalty firms? It just smells of a cash cow for corporate interests, with no overhead to boot!
Truth be told, if this weren't such a blatant opportunity for corporate welfare, these companies might just wake up and realize that the web can be a source of new income, and not a drain on it.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Listen up , you cannot simultaneously support the actions of RMS and his FSF and critisize governmental intervention in support of IP. They are both cut from the same cloth. Both are, at the heart, socialist interventions. RMS and his uninformed teenage fanclub favor a model of government support, ie. dole, for open source software development. This article is simply about a model of government support, ie. dole, for the industry.
The royalties are only 2% of the import price for recorders, and 3% of the import price for media, much less than wherever you got your figures from.
er, the section you found outlaws the making of "bootleg" recordings without the permission of the artist -- bringing a microphone and tape recorder to a concert.
Anyway, Chapter 11 of Title 17 is still part of Title 17, and Section 1008 immunizes consumers against any actions "under this title", so I'm not following your logic.
You are making the RIAA argument -- that Section 1008 only creates immunity if the copying is done using SCMS-equipped recorders, and royalty-paid media.
According to the appeals court, the distinction of whether a device (like a computer) is a "digital audio recording device" is only meaningful for the purposes of determining whether it the device/media are subject to the SCMS and royalty requirements.", not for determining Section 1008 immunity.
Why?
Section 1008 does not only grant immunity to consumers who use equipment defined in section 1001. It can't. Think about it. The law mandates SCMS circuitry and royalty payments for certain digital recording equipment only. It says nothing about any copy protection or royalty payments on analog equipment and media. Yet, the law creates immunity for use of analog as well as digital equipment and media. How can this possibly square with the RIAA interpretation? What are analog equipment and media doing in Section 1008, if section 1008 is only supposed to apply to SCMS-equipped/royalty paid equipment and media? Obviously, Section 1008 does not only create immunity when used with restricted and royalty-paid equipment, because it creates immunity for analog equipment as well! The appeals court actually thought about the law, reviewed the Diamond Multimedia case and determined that Section 1008 protects all non-commercial copying by users, not just using certain equipment.
This makes sense, because the purpose of the law is to stimulate a legal market for digital recordings, while avoiding the "grey areas" that would immediately arise under the RIAA interpretation.
As an example, you take an old record of yours, blow off the dust, and play it back on your turntable. You connect a Digital Audio Tape recorder to your receiver, and make a DAT tape of your record, on a SCMS-compliant machine, on a royalty-paid tape, for your own enjoyment.
Do we both agree that you're protected under Section 1008?
Ok. Now, you notice that the recording has pops and clicks. You want to eliminate them, so you take the DAT recorder over to your computer, connect it to your SPD/IF equipped soundcard, and read the recording onto your hard drive. You use Sound Forge, or a similar tool to remove the clicks, and add track marks, then you burn the final recording onto an audio (royalty-paid) CDR, and re-use the DAT tape.
Is your final CDR legal or illegal? Did it become illegal when you copied it onto your hard drive? Did it become legal again when you moved it onto a CDR? What is the correct public policy to best deal with this issue?
The only interpretation of section 1008 that avoids this problem of "tainted" intermediate recordings is the one provided by the appeals court -- that Section 1008 immunizes all non-commercial copying of musical works by consumers.
I would LOVE to pay even a dollar extra per CD-R or a couple of bucks on my ISP connection, assuming that the money went to the ARTISTs THEMSELVES, instead of to record company bastards which use the money to promote the Britney Spears plague. Napster and similiar is hopefully here to put an end to capitalism of art. Capitalism was fine once, but now the corrumption of it has gone too far. Music to ALL! Give the money to the ARTISTS!
5-pack of 'Audio only' Maxell CD-R, at BestBuy: $9.99. 5-pack of 'Data' CD-R, same specifications, same manufacturer, same store: $5.99.
;)
(I was there at lunch, bought a mislabelled 50-disc spindle of Sony for $19.99
This is typical of the CD-R pricing scheme. I assumed the inflated price was because of the tax. Silly me!
.sig: Now legally binding!
For what it's worth, Carver in the movie was an international media mogul who owned media outlets in many countries, including Germany. But I think that the movie never mentions Carver's nationality or his company's corporate headquarter location.
(Hamburg, one of Germany's major media city, was used as a filming location to please the many Bond fans here. I am told that Germany is the major non-US market for Hollywood.)
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Check that $500 hammer story, that is a reasonable price for that hammer. (Accually I think it was $600)
What the media story never mentions is the hammer is needed in an enviroment where explosives are used. The hammer was made of a special non-sparking metal so that it could be safely used.
Likewise the $200 toilet seat was not sent to an office building, but to a area where more was required of the toilet seat. (I can't remember if it was the space shuttle, or something else)
Roads are a perfect example of a market failure
You didn't read my post carefully. I explicitly said that nobody claims that market can solve all problems. You are attacking a strawman. Roads are not a market failure because in no sane economic system market rules all. There is a difference between failing at something and being not applicable to something.
It looks like Napster is pretty much getting snuffed
Napster the corporation may get snuffed. Peer-to-peer file sharing is here to stay. We were talking about suppression of technology, not of companies, right? Well, suppressing file sharing is going to be much harder than suing Napster.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
The media cartels costantly bitch and complain about how we're stealing from the "artists" when we pirate. Their solution? Tax the products that are used to pirate. But at the same time, they're taking money away from the legitimate artists who make original content too. The media cartels are effectively saying that they are the only legitimate source of media, and all money related to it must go through them and anything else is criminal. So even if you are an "independant" artist, you're still putting money into the pockets of the cartels who either don't think you're significant enough to sign, or you explicitly don't want anything to do with precisely because they don't want to involve themselves with such corrupt orginizations. This is why deals such as the AOL-Time-Warner are so dangerous: If the tools to create and distribute content are held by the same people who create their own content, any semblance of competition is nonexistant since the cartels profit from the success of artists who they don't have a thing to do with. If every artists signed by the cartels began to suck simultaneously, and independant artists became the mainstream, the cartels would still get their money since the cartels get paid for every cd printed regardless if they had a hand in making it or not
No it wouldn't. Under European law, people in Germany can buy goods in any European Union country, and import them without paying duty. The only problem would presumably arise if they then tried to sell them in Germany.
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
No you don't. You might owe it to them. More likely, you owe it to someone else, or no one at all. If an unsigned garage band burns from CDR demos to send out to reviewers and fans, please explain how and why they owe money to some arbitrary record label who will use the money to promote some pop star. If I copy a CD published by media company A so that I can listen to it in my car, why does media company B get a cut of the CDR sales revenue?
If you're so against things being free, then why do you defend the media companies getting this unearned money for free?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You forgot to close your tags
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
dude, I was in Germany for awhile in the mid-90s and IT'S ALL TRUE
Hasselhoff - they love 'im
Some people joke about it and are embarrassed and try to downplay The Awful Truth!
My gf and her friends would rush home at lunch to watch reruns of Dynasty from the early 80s. Wtf is that?
Also, FC St. Pauli rocks!
Niels Tune-Hansen rules O.K.!
Millerntor roar baby! aw yeah..
um, I have to go now...
[We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
This really is great news. One step closer to a working system for rewarding producers of information. Now, all we need is a voting system so the money can be democratically distributed. Then we can forget all about this silly idea that copyright holders has, or even want to have, the ability to limit the use of their work.
The *most expensive* hammer I could find at McMaster Carr is an 18lb nonsparking sledge made of ampco metal at $334.25 a pop. page 2500.
...Just in case anyone has a yen to spend a fortune on a hammer without doing the paperwork.
But remember, you were punished before the fact when you bought the blank media (because of the tax which goes directly to copyright holders). That's the point a lawyer might pass across to the jury. Can you say "double jeopardy"?
ayn rand was a corporate whore and her legs were always open as sure as her mind was always closed.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Shouldn't this be "The Germans are a people by the standard definition" et cetera?
--
The continent I was referring to was not North America, but Europe.
The British didn't even really stop boarding vessels until the War of 1812, even though they had said that they would and wouldn't at various points throught out the period. The War of 1812 had little to do with Napoleon except that the little tyrant made it difficult for the British to fight on both sides of the Atlantic and gave the Americans a chance.
Calling this war anything other than a fairly simple war with complex issues on both sides is ridiculous. And I wouldn't call it a victory for the British, as a world power got its nose bloodied by a third rate backwater ex-colony.
--
One little thing, it still would not be agreeable because that money goes to corporations, which is definately not for the public good.
Companies should NEVER receive income from a tax, that is absofuckinglutely(new word of the day) ridiculous.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It's not property, and it's not the right of the author to pretend something (s)he's made public doesn't belong to the public.
What it is is a conscious decision to support such authors by providing them with a legal means of collecting money from people. It's not a tax, except in the frivolous sense that any money a government take in is a tax.
The levy on recording media, including VCR tapes, goes to the authors/musicians in approximate proportion to the use of the tapes for recording copyrighted songs. It's not a punishment for copying: that is your right, and your right to copy is only restricted by an artificial rule. It's a payment for the proportion of tapes that are used to copy music (and TV) that can't be identified as belonging to one particular author, and so is distributed in rough proportions to all authors.
In the U.S. Copyright is a clause in the constitution, as they would not be able to do it without one: other parts of the constitution effectively forbid limiting our right to copy.
What is ironic is that to the ignorant and rights-obsessed, this looks like taking away a right that they never actually had.
By the way, I make good money off a book that's available on the internet, free for anyone to download. I (well, Tim O'Reilly!) published it, and made it free for anyone to copy and only retain the "right" to be the sole printer of the printed book.
In this way we sin the least against the public's right to what we have made public, while still getting paid for the work we did, and do in keeping it up to date and on the shelves.
--dave c-bdavecb@spamcop.net
We were talking about the corporation-state yesterday. Try to keep up, OK?
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
Ah, but Napster doesn't distribute files. Napster's users share files with each other. Big difference.
Back to the paragraph in question, Paragraph 1008:
No action may be brought under this title [Title 17, Copyright Law] alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
The issue before the court was whether Napster is liable for contributory infringement -- i.e. are they operating a service that other people -- their users -- are using to break the law?
The answer is, no. The activities of Napster's users are fully protected by the AHRA.
Hence, if there is no infringement taking place, there can be no contributory infringement.
except that this is simply the RIAA's interpretation of the law; if you read the actual text of the law it says:
3) A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or
device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by
individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some
other machine or device, the digital recording function of which
is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is
capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private
use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio
recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for
the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of
nonmusical sounds. "
A sound card (particularly those marketed/designed for mp3s, such as the Creative SB Live Mp3) or CD drive (if appropriately marketed) could easily be considered to be the "device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device". Thus general computers could fall under the AHRA by virtue of including the sound card or CDROM, which is the actual recording device.
It gets a little more into a gray area once you start talking about the recording medium. The law states:
4)
(A) A ''digital audio recording medium'' is any material
object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
(B) Such term does not include any material object -
(i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first
distributed by the importer or manufacturer; or
(ii) that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by
consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion
pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of
making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer
programs or data bases.
If you're recording to hard disk (as opposed to, say a CD-R) then it's a little more gray - few hard disks I know of are primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers as audio recording devices (granted, a lot of people use them in this way, but right now I don't think it's the *primary* use for most people).
Also keep in mind that the courts' job is to interpret the laws...and if one reads the AHRA, it seems clear that the intent of Congress (in Title 17, Chapter 10, Section 1008) is to allow consumers to make digital and analog copies for their personal (non-commercial) use. While IANAL, I would expect the courts would find in favor of any consumer who had an action brought against them for personal digital recording on their PC.
(text of Section 1008):
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The German government loves the IT economy with a passion. I doubt they'll risk falling behind on the road towards internet wonderland just to please some media companies.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Lemme get this straight.. I pay $7.50 for $4 of CD-R at the local CompUSA, three-fifty goes to the 'tax'. If I use them to pirate some big name band, the band makes more money than if I had bought the CD?
Pirate away boys! It seems it's the only way to support the artist!
.sig: Now legally binding!
wtf? So, (and correct me if I'm wrong...) BMG is lobbying to get a tax slapped on all computer hardware why? Because it might possibly be used in piracy, and they want to make sure that the artists^H^H^H^H^H^H^Halready-wealthy executives get their share?
Next they'll be dipping their beaks into programming classes which might possibly teach people how to circumvent encryption. Hope they don't find out about O'Reilly's MP3:The Definitive Guide.
El riesgo vive siempre!
Dream on. They'll fine you anyway. Actually, that's an interesting point. Let's say such tax is in effect and I'm busted with tons of mp3z, DivX'ed moviez and warez. Could I claim "but your Honor, I already paid for this when I bought the media"?
If one is a content author, how do they go about getting their money? Are they exempt from the tax? Does 'fair use' exist in Germany?
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Okay, on a philosophical basis I disagree with this concept. I think the government should provide a minimum of services to its citizens and this isn't one of them.
But how do they expect to fairly distribute this tax? I cannot envision any possible fair scheme to accomplish this. Clearly they must have one in place already for the copying machines. Does anyone know what it is?
IANAGL (German), but, if the artists retain any right to their work which entitles them to royalties, a very strong case could be made that the tax is discriminatory and should be shelved. I don't think the corporations will be able to just blithely pocket the money and slither away.
--- Submission is feudal.
How the f*** do they decide how money is split. If I once released copyrighted material will I get a cut of the proceeds? I suspect (as usual) it'll be the big corp's that get the money.
This isn't analogous to this particular tax in this story. The taxes you mention have nothing to do, AFAIK, with "keeping an industry afloat". Do you think cigarette taxes go back to Philip Morris et al? Or your tax on every gallon of gas goes to petroleum companies, or to the auto makers? I don't see anything in this tax that indicates the revenue will be paying for govt services. If I buy a computer, I may never use it for any media purposes whatsoever..it might sit in my basement crunching numbers and never play a CD, movie, etc....but the lawmakers want me to pay extra for my computer so that money can go to movie and music execs.
So, why don't Kodak, Agfa, Fuji etc get into this and get some tax monies from computers, after all, people are using computers to store and send copies of photographs and this cuts into photo film and processing revenues!
--
Interesting. When the US government does something like this, there's OUTRAGE on this forum at the the US government, US businesses, US citizens, and general anti-American hysteria, regardless of the merits.
Now that the Germans are thinking about something like this, where's the anti-German hysteria? Why should the Germans (or anyone else) get a pass on this behavior but the US is the enemy?
This wouldn't be so be if, in return for this, people who've paid this tax on their machines were authorised to make copies of copyright material - after all, they've paid for doing so.
Governments have been doing this in a large scale
for years in different ways. In the USA we call
this corporate welfare, in Canada the recipients
are often called BS de luxe meaning rich welfare
recipients.
The taxpayers welcome this robbery of the tax
money with open arms and actually support most
of the moronic giveaway of moneys to big and
small companies who are too cheap to spend their
own money.
Usually a company takes the grant and create a
few jobs. Those jobs are termined shortly after
the government imposed deadline expires. Often
shortly before the grant there are massive layoffs.
In times of recession the poor welfare recipients
are cut off of their checks to be able to keep
the checks flowing to the corporate welfare
recipients. It is obvious that there are a lot
of cheats and lazy assholes on the welfare rolls
but it pales in comparision to the companies
that uses taxpayers funds to get richer.
Rarely are companies confronted with their
cheating of the system but the government feels
that it is better to punish an innocent welfare
recipients and catch a cheat welfare recipients
than going after where the real money is
big time welfare cheats and corporate welfare
abusers.
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
This doesn't say anything about distribution of digital music recordings. Napster is a service that facilitates the distribution of digital music recordings, not the creation of them. As far as I can tell, this section would in no way protect Napster or Napster users.
But this does open up a whole new can of worms. If I have the Fair Use rights for music, movies, etc that I legally purchase, why the hell am I paying a tax on a medium that I use for non-commercial, personal duplication???? And more importantly, why the hell is money going to the RIAA for the CDRs I purchased to back up my programs, pictures and email????
This law is already out of date. There are so many more uses for CDR and CD-RW beyond music recording.
And here's another thought - if DVD-Audio takes off in the next few years (guaranteed to have some form of CSS on it) will we still be lining the pockets of the RIAA for a medium that we cannot technically or legally copy music on to?
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
This can only mean bad news for Germany if this goes through. Corporations there will simply pack up and leave because of this. The citizens will no doubt buy their media and peripherals from outside the country where the tax is not in effect. Doesn't the government see this??
Imagine for a sec that the price of CD's is US$15,000 and the tax on all electronic equipement is 3000% - 'to compensate the artists, you understand'.
Is that world one in which artists are all incredibly wealthy captains of art? Are the record companies merely low margin distributors scraping along on whatever they can skim?
I don't think so.
You see record and media companies specifically push the risk of content development to the artist in the form of "recoup". That is where they advance or loan an amount to the artist to produce his/her own CD, Video, whatever. Think of it like a book advance except the price of typing paper is $40/sheet. All of that "recoup" is advanced against all of the money that eventually comes back to the artist. How much is that you say?
In the recording industry at least, 5% is considered generous, 3% is more average. That's 3% of what the record company gets back from sales less their overhead which includes marketing, distribution, coop advertising, etc. taxes, etc.
Assume for the purposes of this mental experiment that this figure is 25%.
Now retailers buy units recover their costs out of sales. Let's be generous to the retailer and guess that the markup is 50%. So the record company gets 8 bucks a pop.
8.00x0.75x0.03 or.....
18 cents a unit from which the "recoup" is recouped. So lets figure its a monster hit CD and sells 1 million copies. That translates into $180,000 from which the artist now has to give back the production costs of the CD itself as well as the video and a portion of the production costs for a related promo tour.
Let's use round numbers and say that the CD costs 50,000 to develop and the video another 50,000.
That leaves $80,000. Deduct say a quarter of the cost of a promo mini tour; make this about $25,000. That leaves our artist with $55,000.
Do the math. The net profit margin before taxes to the artist is 55,000/16,000,000 is
0.0034375 or roughly 0.34% that is zeropointthreefourpercent.
Are we starting to see the light????????
Record companies are designed to pay nothing to anyone. What is the point here? I'll tell you. Napster is not the problem. The distribution mechanism is not the problem. Changing the distribution mechanism which is really all that Napster is, is not the problem. Cutting the retail cost to effectively ZERO would not materially change the economics to the artist. The problem is how record companies treat artists which is the closest thing to indentured servitude we have.
Do the math people. Do the math.
I'd start tossing things out if I was forced to pay taxes to corporations. Didn't something like this happen in the 1700's?
Yeah, yeah, there was the American Revolution in the 1770's which freed America, but that was against the British, they only had to learn the lesson once, one war, and they were gone.
The Germans have to be reminded every few decades, or they get upppity again.
Principally I don't care too terribly about music and the like. I think that the best aspects of life are found in books and make more of an impact.
To put it into perspective I really don't care for example that DeBeers has a monopoly on worldwide diamond distribution because I don't like or need jewerly.
However the internet is very important and so is television to a number of degrees. Therefore some monopolies are more harmful than others.
Respond to s
Sounds like this excludes something that makes copies of computer programs, like a high-speed cd duplicator, but not a PC as that is not its primary purpose.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
And as Norm MacDonald once pointed out on Saturday Night Live's "news" segment, Germans love David Hasselhoff - and what could be more Hollywood than his Bay Watch?
Does noncommercial use entail distribution on a scale possible by Napster? Also, Napster is a business - how does that commercial "service" figure into noncommercial use by the consumer. I have the right to download music off of someone else's computer (apparently) but what is the legality of Napster providing a commercial service to facilitate this? Perhaps, under this title, file-swapping using Freenet or Gnutella is legal but Napster is not?
I suppose that's the key wording anyways - "under this title". Assuming the RIAA doesn't allege infringement under title 17, this won't hold any bearing.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
What we're trying to say here is that the government is acting as a central clearinghouse for collecting royalties that would be otherwise be paid directly to the corporation?
If I was a manufaturer, I think it would be easier to cut one check to the government than having to pay a multitude of different corporations individually. I mean, lets face it, the government is more efficent at collecting money than any corporation you can name.
But thats only if the royalties in question would be collected anyway. If the government is inventing new "royalties" (or taxes if you prefer), and then giving them to the corporations, thats bullshit.
But part of playing the game with M$ or Sony or whatever is royalties. If I was in a position that I would have to pay, I would rather use a efficent and centeralized entity to pay them.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
I dunno about German, but I have the understanding that the government cannot collect a so-called 'tax' with the intent of giving it to a corporation as a royalty payment or some such.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
> Has anyone considered what an extraordinary situation it is where government tax collectors are collecting taxes which are funneled straight to corporations?
<AynRand>Cut out the middle man!<AynRand>
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
For all of you that never lived in Germany, Germans pay a 50% tax, and you have extra taxes like TV, 16% VAT tax. But on the other side, Germans don't pay for medical, dental. Even people that work at McDonalds get full benefits. And did you know that Germans pay $5 per gallon of gas???
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Regulations are how they gain control. You know before you make such a statement as know your history. Well...You should know your history. Governments tax corporations for other corporations thus helping corporations to gain market share...Man look at Europe. By the way, you are not paying a tax the corporation is and its being passed to you like all regulation that causes expenses is passed to you. I am not an Ayn Randian but she makes a good point in her book "Capitalism the unknown ideal" , that the problem is we have never tried it.(capitalism that is) Your Socialist solutions are the problem.
First it means "simplified tax" where your "income" (or whatever is taxed) is a "simple" calculation, for instance it is how much money you were paid this year and there are no deductions.
Second it means "flat" in that the formula for figuring out how to convert this "income" to "tax" is to multiply it by a constant.
What I can't figure out is why everybody seems convinced that it is impossible to seperate these two ideas. Why can't the calculation of "income" be simplified, but you still use a tax table (and thus progressive) tax? (conversely, why can't you flat-rate a very complex income calculation like we have currently, a scheme big business would love...)
Without simplification, flat taxes are not going to do anything. Coorporations are actually taxed at a very high percentage, the reason they don't pay much is that they are able to deduct almost everything before this percentage is calculated.
<blush>... and after I got done blasting that guy about checking your facts before you post.</blush> Ugh.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I don't believe that governments put a tax on refridgerators in order to subsidize ice-sellers. There comes a point when every industry will no longer be as important and/or as powerful as it once was. Governments may not be in place to force companies to act in the consumers' best interest, but it shouldn't be actively making it easier to deliver less product for more money.
Could I claim "but your Honor, I already paid for this when I bought the media"?
Depends on the trial method..
I'm guessing a judge alone would convict you.
A jury trial (this is criminal law, right?) might go a little differently... if your lawyer was good enough, I'm sure he could convince a jury to aquit you..
I'm personally waiting for this to happen here in Canada, where a "tax" on blank audio CD & tape media already exists.
How much longer until the government is not longer controled by the people in general, but by big corporations. Even though this is in germany how long before the RIAA talks the US government into taxing all of our computer equipment to pay for royalties. Granted I have downloaded music off of napster, dubbed vhs tapes and the like. but why should everybody be taxed because of the actions of a few? it makes no sense to me._ ___________
____________________________________________
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
We don't like Hasselhoff. But we *love* Yanni.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
And yes, it's absurd to call it a "tax" when it goes straight to a corporation. They get enough government money already. (See sig!)
---
Is he hiding? I don't think so. He doesn't flame or troll.
If you don't like Anonymous Cowards, you certainly have the power to disable this feature, right?
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Do you remember Tomorrow never dies ?
A big multimedia company settled in Germany and which could easily force governments to do what they wanted ?
Here they are: playing once again the game of picking up money in the name of the artists and just about to keep these billions.
I think this would have more weight and credibility if the artists could just ask themselves whatever they want to he public.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
"Has anyone considered what an extraordinary situation it is where government tax collectors are collecting taxes which are funneled
straight to corporations?"
Happens all the time
$500 hammer anyone?
AdFuel
This is so wrong, it is stupid. And I ask: how much of this 'tax' will actually make it to the authors/artists/song writers/etc?
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
Well the companies in question are into squeezing every penny out of the consumers. While they no doubt enjoy collecting royalty fees on blank media (Which is, I have to admit, the most beautiful scam I've come across in a long, long time) no doubt they will continue to create new things, if only to release them in an encrypted format that it's illegal to break so that they can force their happy pay-per-view vision of the world on the consumer. And you know that even when all their new releases are encrypted from disk to speakers that they'll still collect royalties on blank media.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why not drop a crate or two when the plane's flying over Holland? I'm sure we'd make good use of those babies. Maybe we should just put a biiiiig fence around Germany to prevent them from running away...
Unfortunately, these types of people are the last to want to get into the sewers of politics.
I dunno... I've seen a lot of celebrities embracing political causes, and I seem to remember a particular actor ending up in the White House... but I guess most of them never actually get around to running for office.
--
10Brett-T
10Brett-T
Oh, bother.
So, unless you copy for commercial purposes, it isn't "warez" and it isn't "without permission". You have permission. Go and copy to your heart's content. As I understand the law, you can even give copies to all your friends, as long as you don't charge for it.
I am disgusted by arbitrary taxes on any consumer electronics devices, and now, it seems, computer devices.
From where does the United States government derive the right to tax on behalf of Sony?
Is this why the Philips CD-R stereo component costs about $200 more than a similar computer CD-R drive?
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
If you're paying royalities on every device and all media you buy, I'd think that'd pretty much make it open season on content. You already paid the company for it, so why not copy to your heart's content?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Imagine this: a company sells a product in only one country becase they get a higher kickback, and people buy it and have to pay import taxes to bring it back to their home. Or perhaps I'm missing the point here...
WTF? This is about BERTELSMANN... You know, the TOPIC of this entire discussion!
Of course, since most pirating is done in Asia (some operations have large factories and crank out bootlegs in 10,000-100,000 unit quantities daily) I think the only real effect would be a kick in the nads to legal businesses when the recordable media market slows.
Really, now that any 12 year old with a computer can copy and distribute content all over the world, these corporations are justs trying to make money off of nothing.
My current list of boycotted organizations:
Amazon.com (Stupid patents)
RIAA (Stupid executives)
MPAA (Stupid movies)
Microsoft (Stupid software)
This just added:
Germany (Stupid laws)
If we keep on going on like this, soon I'll have to lock myself in my house and keep my eyes shut...
The government often does something like this, in order to compensate the "losers" during a time of drastic change in the economy. The hard part is making sure that the level of compensation is appropriate, and that small-scale victims (independent book publishers, for example) are treated fairly alongside the mega-corporations who are able to pay a lobbyist to keep within arm's length of legislators at all times.
If done correctly, this could actually help the publishing firms move their business in a new direction, by encouraging (financially) their participation in the New Economy.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
- Small-time artists don't get compensated. Proving who should get what would be nearly impossible, so instead, this becomes a royal entitlement paid to corporations instead of dukes.
- The fee never goes away once it has been established. Nearly every American can think of a toll bridge or highway, where the toll revenues were meant to pay for the cost of construction; and we all know that this tax never, never, ever goes away when its alleged justification disappears.
So say what you like, but any so-called tax that goes to the pockets of a corporation is no different than the random entitlements given to powerful friends of the monarchy; only now, the nobility is called a "Corporation." When you look behind the smokescreen of fake market cheerleading, you will see that some of it is actual capitalism, but much is no more than a sign that we still haven't crawled out of the dark ages. So it's the RIAA instead of the Duke of Stickypants; go on bleat "Capitalism" like a dying goat: you're still just a peasant as long as these kind of so-called taxes exist.Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
You do realize that this kind of stupid racism makes you more similar to Adolf Hitler than the average German today?
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
You are incorrect. Herbert von Karajan was worth 1/2 billion Deustchmarks when he died. Paul McCartney is worth at least as much. Master P is one of the richest people in the world under age 40. And those are the very richest, very biggest stars. Many, many, many other musicians have more modest wealth (millions or tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions). If record companies are stealing away artists money, how did these musicians become extremely wealthy? Do they rob banks when they're not recording?
Quick answers to your questions would be 1) It looks like Napster is pretty much getting snuffed (similar apps that survive will do so for now as an underground activity), and 2) it's the force of the market that compels these companies to put the clamps on something like Napster (if they don't squash it, they won't be able to charge $20 CD's anymore). In a controlled economy, innovation from the outside is by definition not present.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Any canadian who's been hiding in their basement for the past 2 years will remember the panic when we first heard of the "blank cd-rom levy" and how it was going to triple the retail prices on all cdr media, but once it had gone through all the legislative bullshit procedures it ended up being so minuscule we hardly noticed a change. That's right, they charge 3.2 cents per cd. Wo-fricking-hoo. At first people were yelling nonsense like 4.00$ per blank cd (which cost about 1.75$ back then). Seen it, heard it, still don't give a fnarg about it.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Well, I have 12 years driving history and a motorsport ASN licence as well as road licence from the UK, but here in Texas I pay the same high rate as you due to lack of having held a US licence for long. The double joke is that not only am I an experienced driver, the standards for the previous driving licences I hold are much, much higher than the joke of a test put forth by the Texas DPS.
Also, drinking and driving is still considered to be "cool" here, while in Europe drunk drivers are as ostracised as smokers are in the USA.
The biggest causes of accidents in Texas? Drunk driving and incompetence.
Extortion now legal in Germany!
In fact I guess the gov't is sponsoring the program check it out!
Since the average American is not as rich as Bill Gates, a flat tax leaves a disproportionate responcibility on the bottom 99.9%. Yet, Bill Gates undeniably reaps a huge personal benefit from public education. In fact he reaps a much larger benefit that I do.
I hope we can all agree that public Universities are a good thing (an educated population is an effective population). So Bill Gates recieves (other that the warm fuzzies I get about higher education) a larger chunk of that pie than I do, yet under a flat tax, we pay the same.
This argument implies that somebody who gets lucky in Vegas and blows the money on wine, women, and song should not be taxed at a particularly high rate, since he is not tapping any particular governmental infrastructure.
The fallacy, obviously, is that Bill Gates has already paid for the benefit of those highly-educated employees, unless he has somehow managed to find people smart enough to write Windows 2000 [pause until laughter dies down] and dumb enough to accept the same pay as uneducated burger-flippers.
Fees charged for services rendered. That should be pretty straitforward right?
That turns out to be one of the two main arguments in favor of a flat tax, when spurious arguments about what constitutes "services" (see above) are stripped away. The other is as follows:
The fundamental flaw of a graduated "progressive" tax is that it lends itself to one of the oldest political scams -- he who robs Peter to pay Paul will have the support of Paul. A graduated tax system combined with equal votes makes it too easy for the politicians to set up a bread-and-circuses system under which a minority of Peters support a majority of Pauls.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Well, that's what you get when you start trying to compensate people based on who seems more 'deserving'.
I hope someday to be popular and charismatic enough to merit having money forcibly rerouted to me by the government. ;)
Many people here suggested that if they pay the tax, then they legalized their copies, and consider that as some sort of joke.
;-)
Well, actually, it's that way already. Copying music and movies for private use is legal in Germany (as far as I remember it's also that way in the US), and those taxes are intended to repay the missing income to the authors (wether the _authors_ will ever receive them is another question...). The illegal thing is to publicly make other IP available (e.g. on a website) while it'd be legal if you e.g. emailed MP3s just to your friends over here.
That does not mean, though, that I'm supportive of this system, especially as in its incarnation over here it has some nice side effects: If you e.g. publish a proper CD of your own music and later on want to offer the same as MP3s on your homepage you actually have to pay GEMA (that's the organization collecting most of these "taxes") fees for publicly offering your own music for copying
> Has anyone considered what an extraordinary situation it > is where government tax collectors are collecting taxes > which are funneled straight to corporations? Actually, the article says "The levies are paid by manufacturers to firms that specialize in collecting royalties on so-called ``intellectual property.'' They then pass these fees on to clients such as authors, music, film or software companies." Assuming this is accurate, I don't think it's fair to characterize it as money going straight to corporations. I'm not advocating this plan as the way to ameliorate Intellectual Property theft, mind you, or whatever less loaded phrase could be used to describe writers' and artists' work. Having to pay a theft tax even though one hasn't stolen others work doesn't seem to be right. Perhaps in this digital age, there isn't a solution, but writers, artists, and other authors do have a right to be paid for their work and to not have it stolen.
--meredith
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis
Ity would be a tremendous fallacy to think that the RIAA is really concerned in the SLIGHTEST about 'the artist'. We know from how record companies treat bands that they really don't give the slightest fuck about anything but MONEY MONEY MONEY for THEM, THEM, THEM! I doubt if this tax will be very distributed among the 'artists'.
(that aside... yeah, you should get paid, of course. this just isn't the way)
Juln
Nearly all blank media is used for pirating music, so we have the blank media tax (and pragmatically, how many CompUSA customers have the 65Gb of non-copyrighted data that merits a 100 spindle for $29.99+tax?
Nearly all home PC's have a pirated copy of Microsoft Office. So, why not add a $499 royalty tax to new PC's and pay it straight to Microsoft?
Um, if hasn't noticed the world is run by big business not governments. I am not surprised at all I expect to see this trend for the rest of life. Good bye Democracy, hello "New World Order".
Policeman: Ummm sir I'm writing you a ticket for not wearing puffy pants. That's $4,000 payable in cash.
All they have to do is just start doing thing like the above and suddently you have no more tax problem. It's just another name for the same thing.
Respond to s
You have a perspective that not many of us have. But do you still feel a little pride that whatever it is that you have published has been *blagged* and published elsewhere.
I know it doesn't make you a richer person in monetary terms, but surely in your own mind you can build great mounds of inner peace and tranquility because people have taken the time to read and be impressed by your work. Impressed enough to make illegal copies.
I wish I had the ability/motivation/imagination to create something worthy of publishing. I feel that I will never know the feeling of having unauthorised copies of my work.
"Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach 18" Einstein
It's the most logical solution I've seen yet. But I wouldn't want it here in the US. I'll be watching to see how long it takes for this idea to fail.
So in the case of music, we have the following chain of events:
An artist records a demo and shops it around to various record labels.
A label decides they like it and advance the artist money to record in the studio, and provides the artist with an experienced producer.
The CD does reasonably well, and the artist starts to collect around 10c per CD sale.
Eventually the artist manages to pay off their debt to the label, most likely by touring and riding the wave of their new-found success.
Meanwhile, their label is raking in millions from CD sales AND getting paid royalty fees from taxes?
Unsurprisingly, the artist is unlikely to see a cut of those royalties.
And please don't reply with "But for every success story there are hundreds of losers!"
Musicians are rarely wealthy. Corporations almost always. I don't think the recording industry needs corporate welfare, and that's basically what that tax is.
I am not amazed to see the government funnelling funds directly to companies.
Isn't the United States run by company pay-offs from CBS, Playboy, CocaCola, ABC, Camel, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Apple, Nike, Christler, Warner Brothers, GE, MTV, MacDonalds, IBM, Bell, Compaq, United Airlines, NBC, etc, etc, etc!?!
These companies are probably tired of paying off the US, they want some cash back.
Shit, I gotta go, I hear some hired goons knocking on my door.
--
you are not what you own
it's a sig, wtf?
Only on Saturday, I was reading an opinion piece in MCV, the UK trade magazine for the gaming/interactive entertainment trade, in which someone high up in a games development company was calling for a £30 levy on every CDR, at the factory, simply because it could potentially be used to pirate software.
I guess this is outrageous to all of us - sure it would probably stop the piracy of PC and PSX games in its tracks -- but it would also prevent me from (say) backing up the digital photos I took on holiday, or burning audio CDRs of campfire songs I recorded onto minidisc a couple of months ago.
We need to be aware that those in charge of "content" are blinkered to this kind of legitimate use for storage media. We need to remind them that piracy isn't all it can be used for, else they will eventually persuade governments to go through with this kind of taxation.
NB: the same guy went on to say "without CDs, these people will use their hard disks. Tax those too."
--
" would LOVE to pay even a dollar extra per CD-R or a couple of bucks on my ISP connection, assuming that the money went to the ARTISTs THEMSELVES"
So send them a friggin check.
The capitol got burned down. Hey great job guys.
Respond to s
However, this sort of died a quiet death, although I'm afraid they might be waiting for some precedent in other EU countries; this Bertelsmann deal might be the trigger...
They proclaim to support the artists involved. However, I've heard many (beginning) artists complain that they hardly get any money. And those beginning artists are the ones that use CDRs to try to sell their music, and they would have been subject to the tax on CDRs as well!
Also take a look at the rules for importing music from outside the Netherlands (you will have to turn off Javascript, else you're bounced to an error screen; they don't want you going directly to a page; else follow the links "for music users" and then "The importation of cd's and other soundcarriers"). If you import legally produced and distributed CDs from outside NL, you may still have to pay additional royalties...
As a small business owner, I should be able to collect some of this right? I publish software, therefore I'll expect a check from the government any day!
What do you mean it's only for big corporations??? Hey!
And I quote:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.
source here
Respond to s
A jury trial (this is criminal law, right?) might go a little differently... if your lawyer was good enough, I'm sure he could convince a jury to aquit you..
It doesn't matter how good the layer is. It still is illegal to have warez and such things. No layer can change this. A layer may help you to get a smaller punishment, but you would get a punishment.
"Similar levies already exist in Germany on devices whose main function is that of copying, such as scanners, photocopiers and fax machines. Depending on the power of the machine involved, the taxes range from $30-$275."
Does this mean that people who buy a 1Ghz machine will have to pay even more (in this "Payback tax ") than people who buy 600Mhz machines. And what about my new Cray Y-MP C90 machine?
damn...gotta sell my car...
- [grunby]
The whole idea of (1)coercive taxes (2)intellectual property is to say that "some of what's yours is mine". Once you allow that, the door's open to a tug-o-war between pressure groups, as to how much of whose property isn't their own. The squeaky wheel gets YOUR grease.
Actually if this is done right it could be a good thing. We could finally be seeing some efforts to create new business models where part of the profit from the tools you buy to listen/copy/share the material you want are distributed among the material creators. Now the only problem is that it is not presented as an alternative or a new way to do things but rather as an additional taxe.
I'd rather pay a little more for a device but be able to share the music/movies I buy for less with others than to pay what I pay now and being threatened to be sued each time I try to share stuff. If only they could do this right it could become the first step towards the new way to do it...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
The trouble is, how do you KNOW that the blank media is being used to record copyrighted works, and not used to generate new work? Again, it was just a ploy for Big Media to get unearned revenue out of an already over-priced industry.
Congress didn't go for it, although I can't remember all the details. Anyone else have more info?
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
My (UK) gov certainly taxes cigarette makers a lot on the basis that it causes (contributes to) a lot of people being ill. Also petrol taxes are apparently so high in an effort to convince people to stop polluting the environment. In both cases (I think) the gov claims that the money generated from the extreme tax (as opposed to std. tax level) goes to hospitals/green things.
Huh??? You "guess" Bertelsmann has something to do with this, so it becomes a "Bertelsmann Tax" in the story's title? This is a new low, even by /.'s lousy standards.
And no, if it turns out that Bertelsmann did have something to do with this (and they're not mentioned in the linked article), it doesn't justify the headline. Either substantiate the claim or drop it. Hiding behind a "guess" is just plain amateurish.
The people who have the most guns and men automatically become the government. That's why anarchy is impossible because eventually people get tired of the constant bandit raiding parties and help Cletus to form an empire.
Respond to s
you know I'm using said equipment to copy YOUR IP and I'll pay the royalty. What if I'm only using it to copy MY OWN IP?
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
The US gov't does not, and never has, collected any "taxes" that are distributed to artists as royalties. Period, end of story.
Makers of Music Minidisc, DAT Music Tapes, and Music CD-R discs for sale in the US do throw money into the music indrusty, but it's the same corporate channels that already existed for music royalties.
Why don't I care? Because:
Of course, I say that because I can make a living from in-person appearances and online courses. If that's not possible for you, then perhaps you ought to reconsider your career choices . . .
I have no
The first thought I had on reading the story was that this was an industry using a national government to try and 'protect it's right to make money'.
And we all know how important it is to protect civil rights for an industry.
This is insane. I swear I'm moving to Tahiti or Fiji and I'm going to live in a tribe.
However, I think that most of these types of taxes funnel their money to other government agencies (gas taxes to the Environmental Protection Agency, cig taxes to Medicare or something - not sure). I'm not sure that siphoning $1 off each CD-R and giving it to Sony necessarily contributes to the public good in the same way that gasoline taxes going to the Environmental Protection Agency might.
---
I agree. It's scary as Hell.
Ohhh a lobbiest group decides to lobby the government for protection of an industry can you say "tariff". Ever seen agriculture supports that actually pay farmers *not* to grow more crops. Been there done that. Not new at all.
The first thought I had on reading the story was that this was an industry using a national government to try and 'protect it's right to make money'.
They have sales taxes on booze and cigs and gasoline, and even regular every day food. I pay sales tax of roughly in the neighboorhood of $0.06-$0.08 on every dollar I spend at the store. This is extremely typical of a government who wishes to keep an industry afloat.
In the abstract keeping a steady income is important for almost everyone but when you get to the level of a billionaire you really can indeed stand to loose some.
And we all know how important it is to protect civil rights for an industry.
When did civil rights enter into this? This isn't about civil rights it's about ecconomics.
This is insane. I swear I'm moving to Tahiti or Fiji and I'm going to live in a tribe.
Meanwhile I sit in my nice comfy chair and get all the benefits that living in a country with plentful food, clothing, freedom, and personal posessions. Very go to the tribe but be sure to take along a camera at least you can make some scratch with you new career as an Anthropologist studying the natives in you new movie: "Nidhogg tarries in the land of the savages!".
Respond to s
Presumably if you are getting the money anyway then theoretically there's no problem. Kind of like rebates on various items at electronics stores.
Respond to s
jonkatz didn't mention it in his book review of The Sovereign Individual but one of the most telling quotes in there goes something like this: "Any government or corporation trying to fight the Internet will just accelerate their own demise." When I first read the book about three years ago, I had no idea what they meant. But now it's easy to see how this works: corporate/state pisses off consumers/taxpayers who just take their money elsewhere. Taxpayers can do this thanks to the Net, encryption and offshore funds, consumers will do the same. Any visible action against the Internet just focuses people - much like the MPAA has prompted the rise of software like LiViD.
Germany imposes taxes on copying equipment, manufacturers go elsewhere, consumers buy imported models and then tell Bertelsmann where to shove their tax.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Gee, here's a novel idea: why not have a LIMITED GOVERNMENT, which would be unable to dole out corporate welfare like this under the guise of 'fairness'?
This is what happens when the government starts controlling and directing all manner of economic activity. You end up with some companies and industries getting special treatment at the expense of others. Which companies get the favors is determined by who has the best lobbying presence, or who can pay the biggest bribe to elected officials.
Greens, Socialists and others want to solve this problem by adding MORE government regulation of the economy. Instead of 'reforming' things, it just causes more corruption, more bribes, and more legislative 'favors' to go to those with an effective lobbying presence. Before long you have an monstrous, corrupt bureaucracy and a multi-tiered labyrinth of asinine rules, restrictions and regulations.
Libertarians and laissez-faire types want to tie the hands of the politicians who would hand out corporate welfare and special favors, by limiting their power. I guess you could call this a 'supply-side' approach, because it cuts off the supply of corporate welfare money.
--
Does this remind anyone of Red/Green/Blue Mars?
Corporate Govornment seems to be inevitable. They rule us in practice now, but soon they will rule us in fact. Just my $.02
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
So does that fact you get taxed for royalties mean that you can copy away?
It seems strange that one can get taxed for royalties for making copies and it would be illegal to make copies of media after paying such a tax.
Sounds like some government got bought out.
As I am an author of this comment and it can be viewed in germany, how can I get some royalties?
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
So while legislators are trying to protect the creators/originators of the work, the intervening corporations reap the rewards. IMHO, the only way to get the ball rolling in the correct direction is to have more artist types (writers, musicians, painters, etc.) run for political office. Look at the steps taken by Sonny Bono when he was in office?
Unfortunately, these types of people are the last to want to get into the sewers of politics. Geekdom is similar in its dislike of the day to day issues of politics. So it looks like we need a few martyrs to take the bullet for the rest of us so we can avoid these kinds of taxing strategies.
The government should never subsidize something that isn't vital to national survival. Media corporations are not vital to national survival, family farms, dairy farms, high tech research, and ocean exploration are (IMO). Time to get our priorities set.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
The whole thing is pretty stupid, because you can buy computer grade DATs and use them as audio DATs . The computer DATs are actually better quality tape, and cost much less (tax not included).
The money collected goes into some giant fund, but has yet to be paid out to any artists, and when it is paid out only the artists that have sold the most units will be paid.
- daniel
- daniel
Turn off your computer and go outside
You have piqued my interest.
Respond to s
Yep... Those Germans sure are backward. I'm glad that I live in the good ol' United States where that sort of corporate welfare is not tolerated.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
In some countries all you have to do is get sick and go to a hospital.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
but writers, artists, and other authors do have a right to be paid for their work
But do they? Even really bad writers? Even writers no one reads? The fact is that now writers are rewarded for their work based on the amount of money they can make for other people, and not on any intrinsic quality they possess. Does Tom Clancy or Jeffrey Archer deserve to earn $10m+?
It's perhaps wrong to steal even from the rich, but don't claim an accident of our economic system is a moral principle. Maybe a big committee should sit and decide on who is 'deserving' of money. Maybe they should draw lots. Then the graffiti artist could get as much as the guy with friends in the galleries, and someone who writes a website could get as much as someone who writes blockbuster thrillers.
If this leads to new economic models, it might not be a bad thing. If it only leads to rich Germans getting richer, it probably is.
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
The problem is that every company out there likes the idea of the new economy, not so that they can provide better quality music or anything else, but because they can extract more money out of people.
They consistently talk about new "business plans", such as rental of music and so forth. I have no problem with pure music rental - it sounds like a good idea - but how long before it becomes the case that *everything* you get in terms of music is rented.
So instead of owning my next Radiohead CD (for example), I would "rent" the songs on it. If I'm a big Radiohead fan, and listen to them all the time, then hey, maybe I should pay a bit more (after all, Amazon do it). Instead of me paying the same as a Beatles fan for a CD, I will pay less because I'm not such a huge Beatles fan. I can see some unintentional advantages of this (encouraging people to expand their musical horizons) but I don't like it one bit. (Think deaths in the family etc also affecting that price)
I would be happy to pay a fair price for access to useful multimedia. Nobody is doing this, they're too busy talking about the next big thing, the next best ideal and they're not offering what the public want. When they do, they might find that there is less rampant piracy.
(For example, try buying Simpsons episodes online)
That's a bad example. Bertelsmann wants to levy a tax because some of the CDR users will pirate music. However, everyone who smokes is contibuting to illness and pollution. If it were true that every CDR were only used to pirate music, then Bertelsmann's request would be agreeable.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
It's happening almost everywhere now, new laws and regulations are being bought left and right.
It's sad, really, when a country isn't out to protect its citizens, but it's corporations. It totally devalues the individual to a point of nonexistence.
Our media is already owned, so we've lost our voice, but when our governments are owned we'll have lost our rights as well.
It's almost funny, 10 years ago we were all worried about what kind of a nuclear world our children would inherit, now we have to wonder if they'll any control over their own lives whatsoever.
With the advent of the Internet that system is breaking down. The problem is that the royalties ought to go directly to the artists, not to companies. In the Internet distribution system 'record companies' are less and less of a part of the system.
In exchange for the taxation you would gain the legal right to copy whatever you want. This does not cause a breakdown in the law; the law has changed to account for differing technology - in effect you now become a part of the manufacturing system.
Of course what the companies want is a hybrid system: where they get to sell records, it is still illegal to copy a song over the internet, the companies get compensation for that illegal copying, and the people who create the actual music get as little as possible. Everything for the companies, nothing for the artists is their goal. And THAT, my friends, is what sucks.
The point isn't "I paid for a burner so I can warez," it's "I paid for a burner and they're charging me for illegal things I might do so what's to stop me from doing those illegal things, I've already paid them for it."
The whole point behind something like is supposedly to reimburse artists for loss of revenue, whether I would have bought their music or not. If I've already paid them for a product, why wouldn't I then want that product? They assume I'm going to steal it so they charge me for it, now I've been charged so I want something in return.
Clearly, the world that Stallman envisioned fifteen years ago, when he founded the FSF, is fully upon us (although I have believed that for some time).
b.g.
b.g.