Germany Mulls A Copyright Levy + VAT For PCs

Willard B. Trophy writes "How does a US$13 plus an extra 16% tax on computers sound? That's what intense lobbying by publishing industry groups has forced the German government to consider. UPI has the story."

Comments

Re:they don't care.

[odin53]

Why would you have to register the computer? It's called a "copyright levy" in the article, and a "levy" is "levied" at sale. Thus, it's just added onto the price (like a sales tax) when you buy it. Not that I support such a tax in any way -- it's just like the horrible additional tax in some countries (like Canada) levied on CD-Rs and other kinds of recordable media.

Re:yes, this is practical

[doktor-hladnjak]

Perhaps I'm confused, but speaking as someone living in Germany, it seems to me that we already pay the 16% VAT (MwSt) on computers.

Maybe they're talking about taxing the levy of $13? As bizarre as this sounds, this seriously wouldn't surprise me.

There's already a levy

[Bimkins]

We've had one for a year or two now on cd-r media (and audio cassettes, I think). They just wanna expand the hell out of it to include ANYTHING that can hold an mp3. From what I understand, the levy will be based on a $/gb scale. As such, mp3 players with 20gb drives will have a LARGE fine attached to them.

In all likelyhood, every cent of this levy-tax-thing has gone into the pockets of the collective.

Re:Yes, however.

[Planesdragon]

I am not saying that stealing is somehow moral. However, the idea that it has any effect on prices is simply hogwash. Businesses charge what the public is willing to pay, not what they have to.

Businesses charge what gets them the most profit. If thefts go up, they increase costs to cover the lost sales--and if thefts drop and sales drop faster, they lower prices to get the profit margin back.

There is always someone who will buy something for any price point,but the slimmer the margin, the more people buy it. The game in business is finding the sweet spot where you get the most profit from the right sales volume / margin markup ratio. Shrinkage does throw this off, and you're a fool to think that it doesn't.

Re:they don't care.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Why is this argument so bad?

Because it falsely assumes inevitability.

Basically the slippery slope argument works like this: let X be some proposed change to the status quo. I don't like X; I don't want X to be adopted. Rather than arguing that X is bad, though, I argue that X will lead inevitably to Y, Y being something that is universally accepted as bad. See the trick? I didn't actually say anything about X at all, except to associate it with Y, and arguing that Y is bad is trivial because everybody already agrees that it is. I don't even have to establish that X inevitably leads to Y; if I'm sufficiently savvy, I can just assume that my audience already knows that X leads to Y.

You recognize a slippery slope argument by taking a step back and asking yourself a few questions. First of all, is it even possible that X might, by itself, lead to Y? Or would it be necessary for other, substantial changes to the status quo to occur for Y to happen? Most slippery slope arguments fail right here. Let's try it out.

Twitter said, "It's a large step toward the end of free personal computing." If you excise the word "large," because it has no meaning in this context, the statement in and of itself is true. Making it impossible for you to use your computer for one thing is indeed a step toward absolute control over what you can and can't do with your computer.

(Is it necessary for you to have absolute control over your computer? Twitter dodges this important question.)

Twitter's implication, though, is that one restriction will inevitably lead to absolute control. Let's apply our test here. Is it possible for making it either illegal or impossible for computer users to do one illegal thing with their computer to lead to absolute control over what users can do with their computers? Or would it be necessary for other, substantial changes to occur in order to institute that total control?

Obviously the answer is "no." It is not possible for one restriction to turn into absolute control without lots of other changes to the status quo. So right there the slippery slope argument fails.

In other words, while it is possible that we might go to sleep tonight having accepted one restriction and wake up tomorrow in a totalitarian police state, it's also possible that we might all wake up to find chocolate bunnies under our pillows in the morning. Unless some pretty drastic things happen, neither one is going to occur.

The boil-a-frog variation is basically the same as the slippery slope argument, only with the extra rhetorical spice of implied malicious intent on the part of an unseen actor. "They're boiling us, folks! It's happening slow, so we don't notice it, but they're boiling us! Jump for your lives!"

In other words, my dear friend, the whole line of reasoning is day-old bullshit, and it stinks.

Here's the problem. If everyone -- and I mean *everyone* -- is violating some particular law, then that law needs to be revisited. Obviously that law isn't for the good of the people, if the people themselves are violating it.

Not all laws exist for the good of the people. Some laws exist for a different good, but people must still obey them.

Look at it this way. The penalty for speeding is very minor-- a small fine-- and the likelihood of getting caught is low. The penalty for shoplifting is more serious, and the likelihood of getting caught is higher. The penalty for bankrobbing is very severe, and getting caught is a virtual certainty.

Hardly anyone robs banks, some people shoplift, and virtually everyone speeds.

We can address the problem of widespread casual piracy by making the penalty for doing so severe, and the likelihood of getting caught high. Say, if the fine for downloading a copyrighted MP3 were $10,000, and the odds of getting caught were 50/50.

PLEASE UPDATE!

[NotSimilarToOtherNic]

If I am not totally mistaken, the VAT is on the $13. For the rest of the computer, VAT is paid anyways. So basically, this news is non-news. $13 is money, and anyone would prefer not to pay it but for a decent machine $13 is less than increasing the VAT by 1%.

Film at eleven...

[Holger Spielmann]

As a german citizen, I have to tell you this is a very old story.

1. A VAT (yes, that's the 16%) is applied to all consumer goods in Germany, with a few exceptions like food for which a lower rate of 8% is applied. And yes, it's deductable. A company or a freelancer will get tax returns on the VAT paid.
2. The 13$ going to the media outlets (don't know the Euro amount) was expected for some years know. Similar fees have to be paid to recording devices and media, like tapes, since really long time ago.
   The only thing that happened was that PCs were recognized as devices capable to make copies of music records.

This fee is officially meant as a compensation for private copies you are allowed to make, see it as a fair use compensation. And that's were we get to the really interesting point: If the media corps already get compensated for fair use, how can it be legal to implement copy protection schemes in the first place?

That is no 'extra' 16% tax for copyright

[Lars T.]

That is the 'normal' 16% Mehrwertsteuer (VAT) we Germans have to pay on everything (less for some stuff like food). It has nothing to do with the 12 Euro "copyright levy"

BTW, the VG Wort (and the VG Bild-Kunst (image-art)) claim that this strengthens the right to make a private copy. The hardware-makers protesting this (like HP) would rather use DRM and TCPA. (Article in German

Mmmh. Source ?

[aepervius]

I mean, such a news would make the ire and anger of the industry I work in. So why this only source is cited and nobody else heard of it here in germany ? I am not even speaking of major media network, but of people in the know and in the industry. So , is thias UIP "source" reputable ?