Slashdot Mirror
MP3 Company Refuses to Pay Swedish Copyright Levy
praps writes "Swedish MP3 player manufacturer Jens is to be hauled before the courts for flatly refusing to pay a charge designed to compensate copyright owners whose music is copied to a different format for private use, reports news site The Local. Jens says the surcharge, administered by Copyswede, is unreasonable and that "it's not our problem that the record industry hasn't come up with its own solution". Apparently Apple doesn't pay it on their iPods either."
I need some good earbuds, maybe I'll buy some from you.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
"And I pray
Oh my god do I pray
I pray every single day
FOR A REVOLUTION"
Four non blondes
The ridiculous thing about this whole deal is that the law specifically states that its supposed to be compensation for "private copies" which before this law was just as legal as it was after. The only difference is that all of a sudden makes of movable media(cds, casettes, dvds, etc etc) was supposed to pay extra to the copyright owners because they felt people should have to pay to be able to use their music how they wanted.
My opinion is that such a levy is complete bullshit. It is under the guise that it is meant to compensate an industry that MANUFACTURES NUMBERS to make it seem like piracy is their single loss of revenue, and that is more than questionable. I mean, is there anything in place making Toaster makers pay a fee for all of the hoodlums stealing loaves of bread? No. And this is equally as stupid. I applaud someone standing up to this garbage.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Is there a list somewhere on the web that hilights all the crazy quirks of copyright law in each country? It seems to be a very unresolved area of law, with plenty of opportunities for hijinks.
Look, if these crazy governments (US included) would stop butting in, the record labels that hold on to their current business models would go out of business, but some other, more creative model would come into being. Hell, one of the big record companies themselves might even be the innovator.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong.
Imagine if the laws the media industry 'buy' were appplied to other products. Knife manufacturers would face life imprisonment (or the death penalty) incase someone buying one of their knives killed someone with it, Ford and Honda executives would be locked up on the off chance that one of their cars was used as a getaway car, and makers of mobile phones would face a free holiday in Gitmo because a nutter could use one of their phones to remotely detonate a bomb.
You go music industry, I love you and your purchased laws and taxes!!
I hope these companies can prove there are enough free mp3's and paid mp3/wma services available that such taxation isn't required.
Secondly if the CD is protected by the music industry obviously that CD didn't get copied and they aren't entitled to any compensation.
Making hardware companies pay fees for acts which may or may not be committed by people they cannot control is nothing more than a government subsidy to a private enterprise. The media companies have a reputation for screwing the artist and screwing the public. Now they want to screw other private businesses with a preemptive restraint of trade.
I sat let's make the media companies pay for all the actual and potential hearing loss that comes from listening to too loud music. That ought to bankrupt them pretty quick. Let's hear their arguments against that! Rediculous as that is, it's exactly what they think they can do to everyone else.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Yes, the Swedish extra tax for storage is stupid. check
Yes, copyswede is a lobbyist organisation. check
Yes, the law is horrible.
But opposing the law on the grounds of "it's a stupid law" isn't the very best of moves. It gives a very bad impression of the company, that somehow the law does not apply to jens company. At least, here in Sweden, that sort of thing is frowned upon.
Jens is only trying to attract customers by using populist tactics. He tried to file a company called Superhero Jens AB, but the name was denied.
If I buy a CD, and it becomes lost or damaged before I can make a copy, does it constitute a fair use for me to copy the same disc from my friend, or download the same songs to replace the ones that I paid for? Thoughts?
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
IANAL, but I thought you certainly could tax illegal activity. Isn't that what they got Al Capone for, tax evasion on the income from his illegal activities?
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
" At last, one real-world company that fights back to the MPAA/RIAA/Copyright mongers!"
Know thine enemy. Like similar national copyright collectives, Copyswede collects money on behalf of authors and performers. None goes to the RIAA, not even as an intermediary.
This is vitally important for everybody to understand if they subscribe to the general philosophy that artists are the good guys while record companies are the bad guys.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
In most countries with copyright law, people already have the right to make copies of copyrighted works FOR THEIR OWN PRIVATE USE without any renumeration necessary to the copyright holder. This consistitutes "fair use", or similar concepts with different terms. In other words, if my CD gets scratched up and I want to copy it to a computer, filter it, and put it onto a new blank to try to recover it, I'm supposed to have that right. I've paid for the product, I should be able to use it.
It is only certain copyright holders that wish to prevent such reasonable actions by technically making such actions illegal, either through the necessity of circumventing DRM (and making that illegal), or by destroying "fair use" entirely. Ultimately, it's not good enough for media companies to have you pay for one copy of their product. They want you to pay again and again for every copy, even if you are only making a mix CD for your own use, or copying it in order to play it onto different media and equipment.
For example, should it be illegal for me to copy my VHS copy of the original, "Han shoots first" Star Wars to DVD, in order to preserve it for my own use? I don't think so. I've already paid for it once. Only greedy copyright holders and unethical politicians would say "yes" to laws that would restrict such an action.
And if copyright holders say, "No, no, of course we wouldn't stop that", then get off your ass and lobby to make distinction clear in law, and stop supporting broad laws such as the DCMA (in its current form), which does not change "fair use", but offers no way for people to legally exercise it if DRM happens to be in place.
To answer the quote: I already fairly compensated the copyright owners when I bought the CD/DVD/etc.
This is bad.
Ten bucks says that the US companies are lobbying to jack up the fine (its not a tax, its a fine) or add another one.
I can see that you're buying a car. Now, we've just added this drugrunning and speeding fines, because you Americans like to do those. That'll be $5000 extra, please. Oh, I know..you probably don't run drugs or speed much, but you MIGHT, so we have to fine you.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
There's not any good natural or common law analogy that I can come up with for it
It would be like paying taxes for the police department, fire department and ambulance service, and then not getting help from them when needed.