Slashdot Mirror
German Court Sets Copyright Tax on New PCs
graemee pastes: "The District Court of Munich has ordered Fujitsu Siemens Computers to pay a copyright levy on new PCs. The landmark decision, announced on Thursday, ends a nearly two-year dispute between the largely Germany-based computer maker and the country's VG Wort rights society, which has sought compensation for digital copying. VG Wort had filed a suit against Germany's largest PC maker, Fujitsu Siemens, seeking 30 euro (US$41) for each new computer sold in the country. The court agreed to a 12 euro copyright levy."
Ze landmark decision, announced on zursday, ends a nearly two-year dispute between ze largely Germany-based computer maker and ze country's VG Vort rights society, vich has sought compensation for digital copying.
VG Vort had filed a suit against Germany's largest PC maker, Fujitsu Siemens, seeking 30 (US$41) for each new computer sold in ze country. ze court agreed to a 12 copyright levy.
ze rights society plans to apply ze decision to all PC vendors in ze country.
Germany is one of several European countries zat, for decades, has been collecting special copyright levies on ze sale of analog copying devices, such as blank audio and video cassettes. ze levies are intended to compensate rights holders for lost royalties from private copying of music, images and moves.
ze country is now poised to become ze first on ze Continent to impose a copyright levy, similar to a royalty collection, on new PCs. Fujitsu Siemens is considering appealing ze case, ze company said.
ze computer manufacturer, a 50-50 joint-venture between Germany's Siemens AG and Japan's Fujitsu Ltd., has also called on ze German government, vich is currently debating its copyright laws, to review ze role of ze country's rights society in ze digital age.
Chief Executive Officer Bernd Bischoff called ze copyright levy "a de facto tax on PCs," which has a negative impact on sales to consumers.
particular person
Wouldn't that make crimes committed against a random victim legal? Such as most muggings: it's not against a particular person, just against the first person who happens to walk by).
(2) Knowingly - Knowledge that one's actions would certainly result in a crime against someone, but did not specifically intend to commit that crime against the particular victim which one is accused of injuring
Woot, it doesn't state anywhere that the crime needs to be committed by same person. So this makes Microsoft legally (co)responsible for all virii and other nastinesses that are out there! Yes, given the huge customer base of MSFT, a possibility that somebody may exploit their shoddy coding turns quickly into a certainty.