Slashdot Mirror
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."
It sounds like the German government wants all computers to be built by big foreign companies, and not small German shops.
This level of taxation would cut into the small margin most small shops make. That means no more guys who come up with creative solutions for problems, no more friendly service. Just packages and long queues waiting for some ignoramus at tech support when the thing breaks. (Plus the shipping time.)
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Otherwise, don't charge me for PreCrime(TM).
The aforementioned Canadian collective has yet to distribute to its members even one tax dollar of the tens of millions it inexplicably hoards.
Well, since the industry has proposed these new levies, and they havent been implemented, it makes a fair bit of sense that nobody's recieved money from it yet.
.
Everyone pays when people steal. You might not steal, but you have to pay for it. When something is stolen from a store, the company has 2 choices: take a loss (maybe go out of business), or pass on the costs.
The same thing happens with insurance. Are you contemplating insurance fraud? You are making everyone else's premiums go up when you do it.
So even if computers have legit uses, and even if you don't break the law, there are enough people out there misusing computers and breaking the law that bottoms lines are being affected. Naturally, businesses don't like this and are working to change it. The only way you can do anything useful about it is prove that the loss is negligible, and to stop illegal copying.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I think I'm missing something here.
According to the article, "this is the non-binding outcome of a one-year mediation effort by the patent office between VG Wort, Fujitsu Siemens Computers, Germany's largest computer manufacturer and other makers."
Where does VG Wort, an association of German musicians, composers, etc, get the right to even suggest this? This isn't coming from drunken politicans, this isn't coming from overactive legislation, this is coming from a private agency. What's stopping these computer companies from just thumbing their nose at VG Wort?
I really do think we need a tariff on clothes though. Without clothes, I would be to embarassed to go to the store and buy music. And when I buy music, I inevitably pirate it on my favourite P2P service. So truly, clothes are the "enabler" in this vast ring of music piracy.
It all goes downhill from first post
This is how it works. Everybody supports banning a few things (murder, theft, etc). This is good.
Then a few people start getting wacky. We ban a few more things - hemp, alcohol.
Then guns, model rocket engines, blank CD media.
We either all stick together and fight all victimless "crimes" and prohibition, or we all lose by the precidents we establish against things we don't like.
There are no viable statistics about the frequency of copyright infringement, nor about which titles are copied more than others. (although searching on Bearshare and seeing how many servers it comes up with is a halfway decent estimate of RELATIVE popularity) Therefore, this would be nothing but a random and haphazard charity for an industry that doesn't need or deserve it.
It would be penalizing EVERYONE on the basis of the industry's absurd projections about how much piracy is costing them. They simply add up the retail price of every unauthorized copy, and call that their "losses" when the obvious fact of the matter is that people download 10-100 times more than they would actually have paid for hard copies of if they hadn't been able to download anything unauthorized. Plus, mp3 downloads have the mixed benefit of providing record albums with free marketing. They actually PAY radio stations to play the songs (not the other way around) as a form of marketing, so how is this so bad? If people really like the album they will buy the whole thing instead of going to the trouble of collecting the low-quality songs individually on Kazaa or Bearshare. Therefore, in effect, the industry's projected losses figures are inflated from their real world losses by a factor of at least 20.
The fact of the matter is that the reason the industry is only posting meager profits is because their expenses are unnecessarily through the roof. More than 75% of all of their revenue is spent on marketing, lobbying, PR, and other such bullshit that contributes nothing towards actually putting out a good product for a good price. Maybe the RIAA should try the latter for the change.
Repeal the DMCA!
Things like this make me glad to be an American. Europeans can bitch about us all they want, but even OUR government has not gone this far yet. Take your socialist stupidity and shove it, I'm staying in a nation where I can host Nazi web sites, buy blank CDs for a quarter, and get a dirt-cheap computer without extra taxes.
U.S.A. 0\\/nZ j00 4||!
Who is John Galt?
Phredd
Phredd - "I have found people tend to take you far less seriously once you start waving your genitals at them..."
There were toll roads...and gates and gatekeepers that charged a fee to cross, lest you incur the wrath of the King. This kind of 'spot tax' led to many things, including graft, corruption and turf wars. Eventually, Kings were replaced by nation states and these scenarios of pay-to-pass were seen to be necessary only to offset costs associated with maintaining roads and bridges.
Fast forward to this story, and we find a new use...income stream. And we see the resurgence of graft, corruption and turf wars. Ahh, sweet history, how I love to meet you, again and again.
This won't happen in the US for a few simple reason folks.
1. Any congress person who votes for this is going to have to go back to their district and say that they raised taxes on an item by 16%.
2. The tech companies such as Dell, IBM, and HP/Compaq also have lobbiests who kill things like this before they even happen. Anybody remember the SPACCCA or whatever it was?
3. Big businesses all over the US would howl at congress because of this and colleges would probably rebel in the South.
Janis Ian's experiences
Advice for the aspiring musician
Baen Free Library
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
they are calling everybody who buys a computer a theif.
No, they're saying everybody who buys a computer should help pay back what the thieves take. That's the type of altruistic governments form in socialist countries.
It's not a flame or anything, it's the same in Canada.
They just dont think it's fair that the 'victims' of theft should have to bear the cost of 'societies' problem.
Or punish everyone for the crimes of a few, depending on how you look at it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Good grief!
Don't forget that the recording industry is *already* getting a levie from CDR/RW drive sold in Germany.
Check out this story published by the BBC back in 2001.
What next I wonder?
A special tax on speakers because they "might" be used to listen to pirated music?
A special tax on guitars because 9 out of 10 amateur musicians play copyrighted tunes without paying the relevant performance fee?
It's just a shame that the recording industry has such deep pockets and politicians the world-over are so willing to accept bribes.
As I said in some other context: the "slippery slope" argument was old when the first caveman used it against another caveman to explain why cave paintings were a bad idea.
Why is this argument so bad?
Ever hear the story about boiling a frog? Basically, you can boil a frog, and he won't complain, as long as you increase the temperature slowly. Being a cold-blooded animal, frogs only notice temperature changes, not absolute temperatures. So a frog will happily stay in the water while you boil him to death, provided you increase the temperature in small increments.
Windows Product Activation is a small step. TCPA -- itself quite harmless -- is a small step. MS introduces Palladium et al, and it seems to be a small step from activation and TCPA.
Next thing you know, we're not only registering our copy of Windows, we're providing information to verify that we are only using one copy.
Paying an extra tax on blank CDs is bullshit in my opinion. I'm not sure, but I think there is such a "levy" in the US either on CDs, burners, or both. I just picked up a new burner and a 50-pack of CDs today. You know what I have planned for them? Software backups, and fair-use compilations of my favorite songs for the car (from, obviously, legitimately purchased CDs).
I know many, many people who purchase a computer and have no intention of committing piracy, of software or music. I don't know what the situation is in Germany, but I'm sure it's similar, anyway -- I'm sure there are people who buy computers for other purposes.
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. So the solution is to change the law -- NOT to tax everyone who is violating it.
If the laws in the US were changed so that copyrights actually expired in a reasonable amount of time -- thus making copyright laws actually useful again -- I think things would be okay.
I'm sure Germany's situation would be similar...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
If the publishing and recording industries are going to take a chunk of cash for all recordable media (Canada) and possible PC's themselves (Germany) then it logically stands to reason that they are giving the thumbs up to freely trading audio/video/textual materials. Now as they are essentially charging everyone for a service that not everyone wants (you don't need to subscibe, just unsubscribe services almost always fail) they had better deliver something, and that something had better be everything that they control available for download, for free, over their bandwidth. Do I like this idea? Not really, but it will be usefull to use in the courts. Either they are charging everyone for a service without asking them to subscribe, or they are accusing all computer users of being guilty without evidence flying in the face of the law (at least in North America). Anyone else here in Canada willing to join a class action lawsuit against the recording industries to reclaim our recordable media taxes?
This stinks like the tobacco lawsuit that was supposed to fund treating sick people in America who became sick from smoking, but instead, I keep hearing that it's going to make up for budget shortfalls. In other words, it's going to fund, oh, whatever.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Piracy won't be effected. But eliminating the middlemen may significantly reduce copyright infringment. (Word choice clouds the debate. Not just "piracy"- things like "evaporate" polarizes something that's really a continuum. No crime can be eliminated completely, but that's not required)
Copyright infringment has more and more complex motivations than wanting something for nothing:
(Additionally, getting music off P2P isn't "something for nothing"- it's not completely free- it takes some investment of time and effort to find these things and download them. Only worth pennies, maybe, but they "pay" something, just like we "pay" to watch TV by the time wasted in commercials)
Focusing on the thought process of the representative college student:
An album of 10 songs often costs more than $1.50 each. Only a minority of that cash goes to recording/editing costs and compensating the musicians- most of it goes to publisher, for marketing and profit. College students aren't fond of those bland men with ties, and are less inclined to give money than if it was going more directly to the artist.
If each song cost $0.50 or $0.75 (reasonable I think, if advertising and distribution is taken out), then we might come to an equilibrium where it's not fear of law enforcement that makes students pay for their music, but peer pressure. If the cost is reduced, and convenience is increased (with something like micropayments, prehaps), and purchasers feel the money is going straight to the musician (with whom they often feel an emotional bond), then the incentive to "pirate" is much reduced, and the personal guilt from violations is increased. ("Oh my god, I stole like $2.50 from Jewel. I am SO lame! I'll click those 3 payment buttons right now")
Consumers will have much less motivation to load files onto P2P if they're already available for quick download elsewhere. Student roommates won't view duplicating a CD as striking a blow against the establishment. Courtney Love won't proclaim that the labels are robbing her, but instead might remind listeners to double-click the tip jar.
Voluntary compliance is not impossible. I can't claim it will happen, but neither can anyone else prove it won't.
(An additional benefit to the entire culture might be that, with publishing house's ad budgets devastated, popular music will become more varied. There could be less winner-take-all homogenization. Maybe, thousands of musicians will earn $70,000 per year, instead of hundreds getting $millions and the rest washing dishes as day jobs.)
You say one true thing (busineses are built around maximizing profit) and use this to sneak in a bald-faced lie (stealing doesn't affect prices).
If stealing didn't affect prices, this law wouldn't even be being discussed anywhere.
When you steal something that cost 2$ to make, even if you think, "I'm only stealing 2$" you're actually stealing the 40$ some guy would've paid to enjoy that game. To think this doesn't affect prices is lunacy.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is sadly not read a lot back there nor are the concepts understood. And if you don't know what I'm talkig about, go get it and read it. It is an eye-opener in its devastating clarity.
Because you might have to pay $14 dollars more, when you buy a computer??
Unlike most physical goods, the fixed startup cost is enough that it is very hard to get into it.
With many physical goods you have to design not only the goods themselves but also machines and systems to produce those goods. Even where you do have costs like movie sets they don't need to be durable enough for hundreds of thousands of uses.
Peter Molyneaux wants gov't support, because Black and White took too long and wasn't bought by enough people. EA may be able to take the write off, since they produce games each year that have profit margins to cover it (NBA Live 200X, etc), but Peter's credibility is ruined, and he can't make more games.
Then either he asks for more credit from his bankers, seeks alternative sources of investment or goes bankrupt. There is no god given right for a business to break even, let alone make a profit.
As somebody who's living in Germany: There is a 16% VAT on everything for years and years...(the only exception are food and other things you need to survive (sorry geeks, you don't need PCs to survive...)
And that 13$ fee is discussed for eons (sp?) so nothing to see here, please move along...
From the article:
... If the levy does not imply permission to copy, then which copying does it cover?
Moreover, the fuzzy nature of the surcharge leaves a lot to be desired. Peter Suber, a prominent advocate of free online scholarship, analyzed the various post-levy scenarios in his FOS blog: "What I can't tell is whether the copyright levy on hardware will come with universal permission to copy. If so, that's a big gain for a small cost
"If it covers copying without prior permission, then users will simply stop asking for permission, and convert all copying to pre-paid copying. If it covers copying without pre-payment, then that begs the question: what does the levy pre-pay? (It's not clear) how the plan would continue to distinguish authorized from unauthorized copying."
This brings up an interesting question. If I pay this surcharge, have I effectively purchased the right to violate copyright laws, and download/burn/rip anything that I want? I mean, if I was a law abiding citizen and refused to illegally copy illegal music, what's to stop me from changing my mind and start to break the law, in retaliation for them assuming that I'm a criminal?
If before I was buying digital media simply to burn Linux ISOs, back up my harddrive, etc, what's to stop me from deciding to start illegally copying music, now that I have to pay anyway for activities that were previously 100% legal?
This will only encourage piracy. In fact, this will encourage people to pirate even more, in order to recoup the funds they paid in digital media taxes.
And I thought governments were stupid....
This space left intentionally blank.
Why not place a tax on tools too. That way people who have their cars stolen can be compensated by the tool manufacturers ;-)
Seems fair to me!!!
And... How about a tax on newspapers just in case they get used in a pick pocket crime.
The list goes on.