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."

Comments

Parts?

[miyako]

I wonder how this will effect people who build their own PCs. Does the tax only apply to people who buy a pre-fab machine, or will individual components also be taxed, or is it on the honor system where if you build a computer at home you are obligated to send in the ammount required by the tax.
As assinine as this is overall, I would much rather pay a $50 tax on any computer than have the media industries completely destroy or cripple beyond recognition the internet and anything remotely interesting that computers can do.

Germanic vs. Roman law

[Anonymous Coward]

First they tax CD-R(W) media by default because they assume you will use them for copyright-protected content and now they're also making you pay an additional tax on computers because they assume you will illegally be using copyright-protected content on your computer. They just assume mens rea without proving it on an individual basis. Guilty until proven otherwise is the premise Germanic law is based on. The German legal system as well as all other modern legal systems are based on Roman law, which is based on the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. How this decision could have come about is totally beyond me. What's next? An additional tax on eyeglasses because you might use them to view copyright-protected content?!

Just as a reminder, the four levels of mens rea set forth in the MPC (Model Penal Code) are:

(1) Purposely - Express purpose to commit a specific crime against a particular person

(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

(3) Recklessly - Knew that one's actions had an unjustifiable risk of leading to a certain result, but did not care about that risk ("reckless disregard"), and acted anyway

(4) Negligently - Did not intend to cause the result that happened, but failed to exercise a reasonable duty of care to prevent that result (which includes failing to become aware of the risk of that result)

Some commentators like to add on a fifth uncodified level (technically applicable only in civil lawsuits and not criminal prosecutions):

(5) Strict liability - Did everything possible to prevent the result that happened, but will be held liable anyway as a matter of public policy, because the government wants to force all such similarly situated persons to always exercise the maximum reasonable duty of care under such circumstances.

Re:May I be the first to...

[catwh0re]

What doesn't make sense is that it's a tax on something which is illegal.

It's like the cd-r issue. Either the RIAA gets money from a tax on cd-r, or they get to enforce their copyright for damages in the court... but not both. Both these organisations are effectively double dipping. This shows how courts and governments can be manipulated given the right amount of money.

Why it's wrong is that users pay a fee for using their cd-rs for any legitimate content, and anyone that uses their computer is similarly paying a fee, for the possibility that they might do something illegal with their machine.

(The RIAA and similar organisations are too used to their lucrative contractual deals where they get alot of money for doing very little, such as 15% breakage fees still existing from vinyl days, when even then it was ridiculous for the artist to be paying for that.)

Re:Sounds like a bargain!

[henni16]

The *sweet* thing about German copyright law and this taxes:

• The lobby groups are active in buying copyright law updates, since last year very successful
• Yes, you were allowed to make some private copies for yourself and famuily/close friends, because you pay taxes for CDs, printers, scanners and whatnot
• BUT since September you may only do so if there is no "copy protection" on the media - and most CDs (in Germany) and DVDs (CSS counts as _copy_ protection) are "protected", so you might not even have the right to make a backup..; I think in "pre-digital-age" you were even allowed (because of the taxes) to make a copy of a rented VHS for yourself, despite all the stupid FBI-Warnings etc
• You are not allowed anymore to circumvent copy protection, to offer software that does it (CloneCD for example, various DVD-backup solutions) or to describe how to do it (DMCA, anyone?)
• Since September ou are not sllowed to make a copy from "obviously illegal sources" (introduced to cover P2P)
• The "VG Wort" mentioned here covers only written works like books and pictures - for copying music there is another "VG" who collects additional taxes..
• If you really want to vomit, read their proposals for the next changes, like the power to request customer information for IP adresses from ISPs..

As a footnote: the movie industry has used lots of pressure on shops and video stores to forbid the import of non-RC2-DVDs (you can't buy/rent them anywhere anymore). There are sometimes price differences that you could order an RC1-DVD-player from amazon.com with your RC1-DVDs and pay less than buying the RC2-DVDs in Germany.
Example: just waiting for the 4th season of Angel;
RC1: ~42 Euros from playusa.com(+possible customs and German VAT (16%))
RC2: 110-120(!) Euros, depending on the shops..

Re:May I be the first to...

[InvalidError]

Thankfully, the federal court ruled that levies were redundant and should be terminated.

While we might not know where all the levy money went, we at least now know the levies will be gone soon (in Canada), assuming they have not already been abolished thanks to the court's decision.

I wonder what kind of share independents manage to get from royalty claims. Since the RIAA regularly forgets that a free/independent market exists and sues intependents who distribute their own stuff, it must be quite a hassle for independents to fight off the RIAA if it accidentally (but happily) files levy claims for unlicensed productions.

People should realize that governments are becoming a system of "by rich people for rich people" instead of the "by the people for the people" they used to be and should be - governments are another area where the barriers to entry are rising every round, effectively keeping most people out.