Slashdot Mirror
HP To Pay German Antipiracy Fee For CD Burners
RiotXIX writes points to this USA Today story which reads in part: "Hewlett-Packard has become the first company to be snagged by a German law requiring firms to pay fees for making CD burners that are being used to illegally lift the latest hits off the World Wide Web.
The case sets the stage for other European countries to possibly adopt similar rules to stem an epidemic that cost the music industry an estimated $5 billion last year." He adds, "DeCSS was attacked partly because the courts felt the creation of LiViD was not it's primary intention. Is this therefore insinuating that computer CD-writers were initially created to ruin the music industry?"
People here are discussing this as if this was a new law and some outragious thing.
It isn't. Here in Germany, every recordable media and recording equipment is affected by this pseudo-tax, since decades. The money is collected by royalty agencies such as GEMA.
This, btw, includes audio equipment such as audio tape, mini discs as well as paper copiers, e.g. copying machines, telefax machines, scanners etc. For paper copiers, the often used example is the copier in the local library. Everyone is allowed to make a copy for private use and since every copy is indirectly pseudo-taxed, the authors of printed books get their share.
The money is then distributed to companies and the authors of copyable works (books, music, film, tv and radio broadcasts).
I see this system from two perspectives.
On the one hand, yes, it is a strange, bureaucratic conglomerate of royalty collecting agencies taking money from consumers.
On the other hand, I am a semi-professional singer who has done some small studio jobs with my band. We have written a song that aired in a children's show on National German TV and - boom - we got an extra check from the GEMA royalty agency (that very same agency that is responsible for the HP story above). Our album was played on some small radio stations and again, the GEMA got notified and we got a little extra income.
There is another royalty agency collecting money from those using my band's vocal work (e.g. for jingles or dubbing work), so if we did the vocals for an advertisement song and that advertisement would be broadcast a gazillion times, we'd benefit from that (we're not that professional, though).
And a friend of mine, a freelance radio journalist, gets extra money through an agency that is exclusively collects money for spoken radio broadcasts, so that whenever a radio stations airs some of his work as a repeat, het gets a little share from that.
So yes, the system works. It is a strange and scary system, but the authors, composers, singers, speakers and actors who create the content for recordable media benefit from it.
With analog media, all this kind of (*) made of sense. But with digital media, things start to become strange. In fact, there are now two different versions of CD-Rs on the market, one for computer data (no GEMA-pseudo-tax) at around 2 DM/disc and one for audio data (GEMA included) for around 5-6 DM/disc. Techically, these discs are identical. This shows that the system does not work as intended anymore.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Maybe HP should just stop selling burners in Germany. Let the German tech firms who have come to rely on this technology tell their lawmakers what they think of their stupid law that says in effect everyone is guilty of piracy irrespective of their stated intentions.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Never trust what you read in the newspapers... The fee is actually not for illegally copied music, but for legally copied music. Any music privately copied and given to friends is legal. So this is a general fee that is required for all manufacturers of equipment capable of making copies of copyrighted works (audio, video, photocopiers). I think the law is from 1965 or so. It assumed that there was no practical way to control private copies of media works, so it was allowed and this general reimbursement was introduced (fee on copying equipment and media).
The problem is obviously with computer equipment that is not just used for media, but also for data storage.
HPs defense strategie is to say that with CD roms the manufacturer is able to prevent making private copies or at least control the copying, so the fees for their equipment should be less. I am not shure if I like the thoughts behind that more than the general fee.
To put in into perspective: After all HP pays about $6 per CD burner to the GEMA. They announced starting work on better copy-protection schemes now.
--
This is an ongoing trend in Europe (and also in Canada I think), levies on equipment and media which CAN be used to copy copyrighted works.
Paper can be used to copy copyrighted works. Why not put a surcharge on paper?
FLASH-RAM can be used to copy copyrighted works. Why not charge that as well?
I know the proceedings are supposed to go to the artists (they do, in fact, go to institutions like BIEM, GEMA, BUMA/STEMRA et al, which are supposed to share the spoils with the artists) for 'legal copying of protected works for personal use'. But why do they have to be paid for that? The law in many countries says it is legal to reproduce a copyrighted work for personal use, as long as you have paid the copyright fees (by buying the CD, video, etc). After you've paid, you may copy the work as many times as you wish, as long as you do not violate the copyright by giving those copies to others who have not paid. So I see no reason why there has to be an extra payment so you can do what is already legal.
Of course, part of the reason for these fees is that people DO in fact give copies to others who have not paid. But by putting a fee on 'suspected' devices and media, buyers are automatically 'fined' for 'crimes' they have not comitted (yet).
All European laws uphold the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. By making people pay a fine before they commit a crime, they (state governments) are breaking their own laws. They are violating their own constitution. If the laws can not be upheld, they should either change the law or find ways to make people abide by them. They should NOT make people pay for crimes they have not commited. By doing this, they create the illusion that it is OK to break the law, since the fines have already been paid.
[I also posted this comment on linuxtoday btw.]
--frank[at]unternet.org
So I gotta pay $X extra when I buy a CDRW, and the money somehow goes to the music industry. So I'm paying them now for the POSSIBILITY that I might use it to burn a copywrited song. OK. I'm paying for it. Does that mean that it's LEGAL now for me to do so?
Is that the sound of lawyers drooling on the table that I hear?
With the cost of GPS chips dropping so rapidly, maybe it would be cheaper for manufacturers to equip each drive with a GPS receiver that disables the burner if the user is within German national boundaries. (No, I'm not serious. But some of the weirdest things seem to come true, so don't discount this completely.)
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
This is obvious but everyone is reading it as if they are the same.
In Germany you are _allowed_ to rent a movie and copy it for personal use (use with familly or having close friends over). People pay a special "copying" tax for this. In Germany macrovision is illegal because it stops you from using your right to copy video tapes which you paid a tax for.
This is why it's not unusual for them to tax CDROM burners because those are used for copying also.
Did you know that the LiViD web site is hosted in Germany for legal reasons?
It's not as bad as Slashdot is making it seem. It's just different.