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."

70 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Go Jens! by yotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I need some good earbuds, maybe I'll buy some from you.

    1. Re:Go Jens! by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So they design a shiny label saying "Jens of Sweden" (a retarded name if I ever saw one, and I'm a Swede) which they slap on a bunch of Korean players - is that really worth 30-40% higher price for you?

      No, but supporting a company that upholds a person's ideals is a good reason to pay the extra 30-40% (and when we're talking earbuds, that 30-40% aint much).

    2. Re:Go Jens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is so true. I would encourage people to buy from jens and site this as one of their reasons. The other reason is many of their plays play OGG!

      <rant>

      There is no way Jens should be punished for a totally unrelated product. They sell a flash drive and circutry to play sound off that drive that might be all creative commons stuff or podcast or legit bootlegs... why should they pay those monsters a cent? What next? Hard drives are taxed extra? hearing aids? Internet connections? Phone lines? Mobile phones?

      It's a load of BS and shows how corporatised many legal systems have become. If a company wants a law they agitate and lobby and some stupid politicians give it to them. It's time to stamp on the RIAA and MPAAs necks once and for all until they stop breathing.

      </rant>

    3. Re:Go Jens! by unoengborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it is reasonable that a hardware company should pay for copyright infrignements made by the user of the hardware. Afrer all we don't charge gun manefactuerers with murder in case sombody should use their legally bought gun to kill sombody.

      Even so, Jens of Sweden is not my hero.

      He really know how to cut down costs. One of his way of doing this is by not honering warranty agreements to customers that have had the misfortune of getting a fawlty product.

      According to an article in todays number of Computer Sweden, all the leading Swedish chains of stores in electronics have decided to stop doing business with Jens of Sweden due to a large number of dissatisfied customers.

      The article also states that several complaints on Jens of Sweden to the Swedish National Board of consumer policies have been filed over the last year

      For those of you that read Swedish the article is on:
      http://computersweden.idg.se/ArticlePages/200509/1 9/20050919075347_CS084/20050919075347_CS084.dbp.as p

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
  2. Finally!! by ParrotDroppings · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At last, one real-world company that fights back to the MPAA/RIAA/Copyright mongers!
    I hope they will put the trial on TV like they did with mr. Jackson.
    L33T ! W00T !!

    --
    Free ?! Does that mean I can't get a Discount ?!
    This message was /.'ed
    1. Re:Finally!! by drstock · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hope they will put the trial on TV like they did with mr. Jackson.

      Actually, here in sweden it's not allowed to film or take photos in court. You are only allowed to record sound and make sketches.

      --
      My other comment is funny
    2. Re:Finally!! by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " 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.
    3. Re:Finally!! by cranktheguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      WRONG. The money goes to copyright holders. Most artist do not own their own copyrights. Their record companies do.

      --
      yeah, that's about it
    4. Re:Finally!! by shark72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      " WRONG. The money goes to copyright holders. Most artist do not own their own copyrights. Their record companies do."

      You're partially correct. Here in the US, the record company typically owns the copyright on the recording, while the artist retains the copyright on the words and music -- also known as the "publishing rights." Here in the US we have a couple of non-profit societies, ASCAP and BMI, that make sure the artists get paid for radio airplay, jukebox airplay, and pretty much everything else unrelated to actually selling the CD. As an aside, ASCAP and BMI aren't directly related to the collecting of the levy on music CD-Rs in the US, so they're not the direct equivalent of Copyswede.

      Copyswede, the organization referenced and linked to in the summary, represents the creative folks -- including organizations like "The Association of Swedish Illustrators," "The Swedish Playwrights' Union," and so on. The relevant ones here are SAMI (a link in English which will give you some good background) -- the Swedish Artists' and Musicians' Interest Organization -- and the Swedish Federation of Professional Musicians (which does not have an English site that I can find).

      I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, just ask. Your assertations that Copyswede gives money to record companies, and that I am incorrect, are interesting. Please let me know if you have any citations to back this up.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  3. To take Jens' side. by Alsn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Complete Bullshit by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Complete Bullshit by cronius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As stupid as it is, I would actually accept it if it means distributing copyrighted material would be legal. But they're getting it both ways (it's illegal, AND we're supposed to pay for those who don't follow the law, regardless what we do ourselves) and that's just stupid.

      I'm talking from a consumers point of view, I can see why a company wouldn't like it either way.

      --
      Life is Reality
    2. Re:Complete Bullshit by Xarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (it's illegal, AND we're supposed to pay for those who don't follow the law, regardless what we do ourselves)

      We pay taxes which fund police, fire and ambulance services, even if we aren't responsible for the law being broken, the house burning down, and the crazy cat-ladies stroke.

      Sucks though.

      --
      C17H21NO4
    3. Re:Complete Bullshit by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Funny

      It all sounds like a music industry protection racket to me
      (MIE : Music industry executive .. PrM :Product manufacturer)

      MIE : Hello Mr Jackson , Nice product you have here

      Prm : Yeah it is , is it not

      MIE :Shame if something would happen to it .

      PrM: What like ...

      MIE: Well say some of your customers used it to break the law
      *MIE pushes one on to the floor*

      MIE:Whoops Accidents will happen Mr Jackson . So we are proposing a little levy to cover you incase anything bad happens

      PrM : GET OUT!

      MIE :I will , but think about what i said .. you wouldn't want anything to happen to that nice shiny sports car out there .Say if the Boys (Accidentally) had to take it in lieu of a fine for facilitating copyright infringement.

      PrM : OK you'll get your money

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    4. Re:Complete Bullshit by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you've got it turned around. You pay taxes so that there will be a police department there if your house gets broken into, a fire department if it catches on fire, an ambulance service if you fall down the stairs, etc. That is to say, you pay taxes because these are all things which you might one day have a need for, and when you need them, you really NEED them. Also they're arguably (and yes I am aware that this point could go either way) not things the free market would adequately provide.

      You are paying for the service before you use it -- just like you'd pay for a tech support contract, or insurance, basically.

      These copyright "taxes" are completely different in that they place the consumer in the role of the criminal, paying damages for a crime they haven't committed yet, under the assumption that they are either complicit or somehow involved in it. There's not any good natural or common law analogy that I can come up with for it, which makes me suspect that it's probably unreasonable.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    5. Re:Complete Bullshit by halr9000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I understand what you are saying, but I disagree on all levels. I look at it from a consumer's point of view in saying that MY price will go up if THEIR price goes up. Plus the concept is just ridiculous. Why should the government enforce a subsidization of a private enterprise? Why not cut the BS and just increase your taxes so that the government can issue an MP3 player to every citizen? Same thing, really!

    6. Re:Complete Bullshit by bleckywelcky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's bullshit. I haven't downloaded any copyrighted material from labels in the RIAA, yet if I want to have an MP3 player to carry around my free Indie music, I have to pay the RIAA? About all you're saying with your post is that you are admitting you steal music, and you want everyone else to pay to legitimize your theft.

    7. Re:Complete Bullshit by aaronl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The worst part is that a government tax is supposed to go to the government. This is the government allowing the recording company to use the force of government to levy and collect tax, to be paid to their private company. That is wholly inappropriate, and likely illegal in all EU countries.

      Think of it this way, if the government collects a tax from you to fund the school, they have to allow you to use the school now. If the government collects a tax to pay for copyright infringement, by that logic, they have to allow you to infringe.

  5. International Legal summary? by interiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:International Legal summary? by RandoX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here's a site with thousands of pro bono lawyers, each one intimately aware of every subtle nuance of international copyright law. They'll be glad to help.

    2. Re:International Legal summary? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes! And I hear they're all fully vested members of the InternAtional New Arts League (IANAL), an association for experts on the legal ramifications of emerging new technologies.

      Isn't it wonderful to have access to a resource like this?

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:International Legal summary? by zoeblade · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There a are a lot of quirks. For example, All You Need to Know About the Music Business mentions in passing at one point, that until recently, jukebox owners didn't have to pay royalties every time a song got played, because they were legally toys.

  6. Good by mrsev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    May I wish them all my support. As far as I see it it is a tax that is paid to a private company. In the same way that when ever I do a data back-up I must pay "sony et al" some money for the "blank media" . This is in Portugal at least. One shop tha tI know....mediamarkt. Actually puts how much you pay on he receipt. In this way I found out I was also paying a "recycling" tax on my RECHARGABLE batteries.

    "They shaft us coz we take it!"

    1. Re:Good by mdielmann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In this way I found out I was also paying a "recycling" tax on my RECHARGABLE batteries.

      And how is this unreasonable? Do they last forever? Can the materials they're made of be reused once the battery is no longer functional? The question in my mind is, is it the same as the recycling tax on a regular battery.

      A lot of people might be thinking "It should be lower", but the process for making and disposing of rechargable batteries is about as environmentally unfriendly as regular batteries. And if the tax is the same on a per-battery basis, you be saving huge amounts of tax by buying the rechargable ones anyway.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  7. 85 million kronor by mysqlrocks · · Score: 5, Informative

    Last year, 85 million kronor in cassette compensation was collected and redistributed by the copyright organisation Copyswede.

    FYI, 85 million kronor is appx. 11 million U.S. dollars.
  8. Why can't we let market forces rule here? by confusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/

    1. Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, as some brilliant person once said, "P2P won't kill the music industry, only the current one."

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually something similar is happening in China. Due to the high level of movie piracy it's harder and harder to make traditional and more costly action movies and recoup the costs. Accordingly, they're not being made.

      However, the movie industry still exists in an admittedly different form.

      Here's a good example in our country. In part to cut down on piracy, the movie industry is thinking about releasing DVDs the same time movies are released in the theater. So instead of wasting hours downloading the lastest Hollywood crap you could simply go to Blockbuster and get if for a few bucks or Netflix for less than a buck.

      This change may kill off most theaters. However, the movie industry would still exist.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    3. Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "This change may kill off most theaters."

      Quite frankly, I am dreaming for the day that movie theaters will become a rarity that will only be enjoyed by true movie fans, instead of a dumping ground for rude children. Charge me $25 per ticket for a nice seat, serve reasonably priced food and absolutely forbid anyone under 21 from entering the building. Sounds elitist? Damn right...but let's face facts, most theaters are crap nowadays because of the annoying kids. I'm not even 30 yet and I'm complaining about it.

    4. Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? by Suzumushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could make a similar argument that I shouldn't have to pay a large portion of my real-estate taxes, because I don't use the school district services in any way, but then all the kids couldn't go to school because we couldn't afford it. It's true.

      However, the point of little to no government involvement in this issue has one remarkable difference to the issue of government involvement with roads, transportation, health care and education, in that it is NOT a necessity of the populace. This concerns a product being sold to customers, not a necessary infrastructure. As some have said, the only reason that the government is involved at all is because the RIAA/MPAA and other organizations world-wide have tremendous lobbying power, not because our elected officials have any care as to what is the best for their people. I'd be willing to bet that anyone with any power in the FCC gets free cable and anyone with any power over legislation concerning copyright and the DMCA gets a lot of free movies and other kick-backs.

      What we are asking for is Self-Reliance. The ability to have the market determine what we want, not the government. As long as the government continues to stick it's nose in this business at the behest of the media conglomerates, there will be conflict. That is unless you're a democrat who thinks that we should just pay lots of taxes and have the government decide whats best for us. (I just had to stick that in for the republican remark!)

    5. Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not as long as politicians, as they are here in the US, are "elected" by corporations. Without these corporations "contributions", they would never have been elected or reelected.

      Anyone who thinks politicians care about people here in the US, need their heads examined.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    6. Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have read about a few theatres that are doing it different: meals served, large comfy chairs with a table to eat on, cocktails (serving is before the movie). This is basically a take off on the dinner theatre.

      I haven't gone to the theatre in about 10 years, mainly because the screens are too small, the people are too loud, the food is overpriced (its just freaking popcorn and coke, for god's sake...) and all too often, the movie sucks.

      If they would work to improve the EXPERIENCE, then I would gladly go. There are too few entertainment choices for an adult as it is. Clubs are boring (been there, done that). Most evening entertainment is geared for 25 year olds. Dinner is fine, but not the movie afterwards in the current environment.

      Give me a pleasant experience where they kick out people on cell phones, give me a nice meal (not too fancy, like baked chicken or fish, 2 veg & bread), a glass of wine or two (extra $), a comfy chair, and I will happily pay $25 to $50 each person, depending upon meal and comfort. Make it 18+ and I'm golden. They are missing out on a market that is already begging for a product.

      I don't mind paying more, I just get fscking tired of getting less and less.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    7. Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember, the laws that create Intellectual "Property" _are_ government butting into the market. Supposedly, for the greater good. I don't see it. I see the system gamed for the enrichment of individuals who have contributed to nothing but the gaming of the system (e.g. Lemuelson, BSA).

      I don't see the good in the government fighting the production of alcohol. I don't see the good in the government fighting a war on abstract nouns, e.g. Poverty, Drugs, or Terror.

  9. jens by MrSpiff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jens is commonly known as being one of the few public figures in sweden standing up against the swedish equivalence of RIAA/MPAA, Antipiratbyrån ("The Antipiracy Bureau").

  10. Interesting, but probably futile.... by Willeh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's a nice gesture, but i doubt it's gonna work. Over where i live (the Netherlands) the national copyright association (we actually have 2 similar ones) is under fire for shady practices with regards to taxes on blanc DVD-R's and so on. What needs to be done is protest the existance of these vague agencies whose working are mostly unnnoticeable (does the money really go to the artists?) at a national level, by openly questioning the existence of said agency.

    It does seem pretty damn unfair that Apple would be exempt, since they don't manufacture their players in Sweden. I'd urge all Swedes to buy their media/ players that are burdened by taxes that would go to this agency abroad like we've been doing (i buy all my blancs in germany, where there are no unfair taxes. Hell, over here the tax is more than the media itself!) for a while now.

    --
    Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
  11. Bravo that company by mrRay720 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!!

    1. Re:Bravo that company by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      This is actually not a piracy levy, but a privacy levy. It's a fee taken to compensate artists from the legal rights you have to make personal copies.

      Here's the deal: Copyswede's Blank Tape Levy [english]

      IMHO, that only makes it even more freaky. It's a legal right we have, and they seek compensation for that right, and the gov't blindly think they can do so? I don't understand how they can have legal support to do this. Note this is not about the gov't collecting levies, it's about a commercial organization. They call themselves a "co-operative economic association".

      But regardless the intent, it's ridiculous to put a levy on... blank records... in my opinion. They have no clue what I do with them, which ones I use to backup work on, to send digital photos to my family on, etc. Am I supposed to pay for my own copyright here? Get rid of your hands on my work!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  12. Copied to a different format??? by somethingwicked · · Score: 4, Funny

    compensate copyright owners whose music is copied to a different format for private use

    Copied to a different format huh? So, I have to pay money to do this :

    One-a - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Tvu - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Three-a - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Fuoor - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Oone-a - Sumetheeng's gut tu geefe-a Tvu - Sumetheeng's gut tu geefe-a Three-a - Sumetheeng's gut tu geefe-a Noo Let zee budeees heet zee fluur Let zee budeees heet zee fluur Let zee budeees heet zee fluur

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

    1. Re:Copied to a different format??? by iphayd · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot the bork! bork! bork! at the end.

      Then it would be in proper sweedish.

  13. Free mp3's by nuggz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Free mp3's by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hope these companies can prove there are enough free mp3's and paid mp3/wma services available that such taxation isn't required.

      Unfortunately, there are no free MP3s.

      http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html

      http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

  14. Interesting quote by smellystudent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A statement from CopySwede: "As the law stands, people have the right to make copies for private use, so the copyright owners should be fairly compensated."

    Isn't that what they pay for when they buy the music?

    Or is he saying that Swedes only pay for the right to have a single copy of the music on the medium supplied, and must not transfer it to any other medium?
    Does copying it in electronic form to stranded copper count? :-)

    --
    Predictive text is shiv!
  15. Good for Jens by Bob3141592 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  16. Apple DOES pay the personal copy tax... by l0ne · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...in Italy, at the very least. The amount of the tax (out of the total cost of the iPod) is shown in red at the bottom of each iPod price page at the Apple Italy store (http://apple.com/italystore).

  17. Upgrade Yourself by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I transfer music I legitimately own to another format for my continued personal use, that's a fair use of my copy. Otherwise all the thieving recording industry need do to extort another round of profits from me is discontinue the old player, the old format. Formats are now so much more often new software, therefore cheaper to roll out (and less of a loss in discarding) than the old hardware formats. So the record industry wants to force upgrades of the same content. How many times must I pay to continue to listen to _Dark Side of the Moon_? That's why they're trying to stop us from doing it ourselves. It's certainly cheaper and even easier for them than producing some new content that I'll like.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  18. Stupid laws still apply, Jens by jurgenaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Stupid laws still apply, Jens by sqlrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they are doing, provided they are willing to suck up and deal with the damages under the law, is the essence of civil disobedience.

    2. Re:Stupid laws still apply, Jens by jurgenaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about most major resellers refusing to sell Jens' products, since the warranty circus takes forever to get through?

      Some stores have taken on themselves to repair the players themselves, at an economical loss, only to serve their customers better than Jens does.

      Or, perhaps, Jens famous fights with his korean suppliers, how his payments are late/few etc.

      Never trust a guy that wants your money to do something for the greater good.

    3. Re:Stupid laws still apply, Jens by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Yes...You... The retard in the back with the stupid question!?"

      Opposing "stupid" law is the very essence of democracy (yes i know sweden only barely resembles a democracy). Yes they are getting publicity. Yes they are doing the public good. They probably are also trying to eliminate the single most costly component of their products. A tax which by any stretch of imagination is unjust.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  19. God is angry by black_meow · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am just waiting to see God appear on my doorstep with a receipt book in his hand, taxing me for using my penis for other than what he though it should be for.

  20. MPAA/RIAA on the offensive in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    A few months ago, there was a case where the MPAA/RIAA oriented anti-copyright agency, the piratbyrån used insiders to plant evidence on a company's server and then raid them BSA style. There is also a lot of pro-softwarepatent work and lobbying going on behind the scenes in the agencies.

    1. Re:MPAA/RIAA on the offensive in Sweden by md2perpe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ehm... It was not Piratbyrån, but Antipiratbyrån.

    2. Re:MPAA/RIAA on the offensive in Sweden by sp3tt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, what idiot modded this overrated? It is clearly informative.
      Piratbyrån ("The pirate bureau") is an anti-copyright, non-profit organization. Antipiratbyrån ("The anti-pirate bureau") is the MPAA and BSA's face in Sweden. They do not represent the music industry, a common misconception.
      Piratbyrån's name is a pun on Antipiratbyrån. Piratbyrån is also against software patents, and has often figured in Swedish TV.

      The incident refered to by the Grandparent was in March. Antipiratbyrån made a raid on the Swedish ISP Bahnhof, which incidentally happened to be in the same building. Four servers were confiscated by the police, they were thought to contain copyrighted material. The disks were encrypted, so no luck there. Later it was revealed by a group of hackers that an employee of Antipiratbyrån had planted the material on the servers. FYI, we're talking a few hundred gigabytes. Email conversations between the employee and Antipiratbyrån were published on antipiratbyråns webpage, which was hacked.
      Bahnhof later published a report (not available in English) about the incident, claiming that Bahnhof had nothing to do with it, and that Antipiratbyrån themselves were guilty.

  21. Jens fights for us! by Hackie_Chan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Jens is the founder of the company Jens of Sweden, a company that mainly imports and resells Asian mp3/music players under their own brand. It's a business that has made Jens a millionaire in a really short time. I consider their products to be so-so, but a lot of my friends own one. I've also heard that he's quote "an ass" in real life, but nevertheless he's a pretty smart one.

    A couple of months ago in Sweden there was a large public debate regarding copyrights and illegal downloading over the internet because the government was was setting in the motion of banning it "once and for all". And that's when I got respect for Jens: Because of his popular company and respect in the business world, he got a lot of media attention. He used it to criticize the current music industry, telling them to push and advance their business instead of trying to patch up a stone age one. I remember a debate on public television where it was Jens with a couple of other pro-Internet people versus a bunch industry henchmen. It was some exciting television!

    Regardless of what you think of him as person, he's been a very important figure in this country, and he's fighting on our side. Too bad for example there isn't a "Jens of the United States" that can do the same for the Americans.

    --

    What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
  22. hypothetical question by yEvb0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!"
    1. Re:hypothetical question by JadeNB · · Score: 5, Funny
      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?
      Two illegal activities in one post!

      1. Inciting illegal music copying via hypothetical questions.
      2. Inciting thought.

    2. Re:hypothetical question by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2

      That's where people like the RIAA want it both ways.

      On the one hand, they say you haven't bought the media you've only bought the rights to play it (so can't do anything you like with it eg. Play a DVD under Linux).

      On the other hand if you lose the media you lose the right to listen to it any must pay again.

  23. You cannot tax illegal activity by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You just can't say it more clearly than that.

    If the activity is legal, there can be taxes imposed. One might argue "this isn't a tax." Okay, so technically, it's not, but it is in many respects. Further, somewhere along the line is an assumption of unlawful infringement by the users sponsored by the makers of media players. This 'legal' assumtion circumvents the free-world's notion of due process under law.

    I have been an opponent of preemptive copyright infringement compensation since I first heard of it. It flies in the face of presumed innocence and due process that we, the people of the free democratic societies have always expected. The only "approriate" way for this to be legally established is for the **AA's to lawfully SUE all consumers in every country in a tremendous class-action suit against infringement activities. I'd love to see them try that too. They'd loose and people would more directly hate them for it.

    The biggest problem with all of this is that the public at large is still unaware of how this affects them. So as long as the costs to consumers are hidden (by charging the media and hardware makers) consumers will pay the price on the label and move along as if nothing wrong has occured.

    1. Re:You cannot tax illegal activity by Bob3141592 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:You cannot tax illegal activity by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was, I believe, for not reporting his "income." The money was all laundered and couldn't be proven conclusively to come from illegal activities other than gambling (although it was rather clearly coming from the alcohol trade), but what they got him on was not paying taxes on his 'gambling' income.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone
      http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/capone /capone.htm

      In something that's tangentially related, did you know that your gambling losses are tax deductible? Kind of ironic that the fiscal incentive to donate money to the Red Cross is the same that it is to blow it down at the track on the ponies.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:You cannot tax illegal activity by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      I don't know the Swedish law, but it sounds like the Canadian one. Unlike the US law, it is perfectly legal to make copies of copyrighted music for personal use. This isn't a tax on illegal activity, it's a payment for a collective license.

      Obviously it's not perfectly fair: there are lots of people who use their MP3 players to make backups of their own files, and they shouldn't pay the tax. (Errr, sorry, that's the CDROM argument. What is the argument that someone should be allowed to make free copies of copyrighted material to put on their MP3 player?)

  24. The actual law by bwz · · Score: 5, Informative

    So people can discuss with some more information, the actual law is "Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk" available (in Swedish, sorry 'bout that, I'll try to translate the relevant portion as a reply to this) here. The relevant paragraph is chapter 1, 26 k .

    --

    Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
    --- Jubal Harshaw
  25. We gots one by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Regardless of what you think of him as person, he's been a very important figure in this country, and he's fighting on our side. Too bad for example there isn't a "Jens of the United States" that can do the same for the Americans.

    We have Patricia Santangelo, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/22 10219&from=rss, the mom standing up to the RIAA. We don't have ane enforced tax on CD media or iPods that I know of. This is one of the examples where our Legiscritters seem to have given away a bit less of our rights than those of some other countries.

    The RIAA may be suing people who have allegedly broken the law - or whose computers were used to break the law - but to my knowledge, there's no "reimbursement" tax on the bulk of law-abiding citizens.

    Now, how was that Grokster case going again...doh!

  26. Interesting slight of hand. by Greger47 · · Score: 3, Informative
    I remeber the debate when the levy was introduced. Since it wasn't really illegal to copy music privatly from friends the levy was introduced on blank casette tapes to compensate the music industry. As technology progressed more formats where included, like CD-ROMs, DVD-Rs, and MP3 players. Even hard drives have been suggested by the music industry!

    Nowdays we have stricter copyright laws and even coping between friends is strictly forbidden, and suddenly the levy is described as beeing compensation for me copying the music I already own to a different medium.

    It seems someone want's to keep the cake and eat it to...

    /greger

  27. Do PDAs also need to pay this tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A stupid tax like this could increase the price of *ANY* device capable of playing digital audio files, so lets start:
    - PDA (Audio Jack connector: if its mono pay only half tax:)
    - Mobile phones (almost any recent model can play audio files)
    - Laptop (wow this one have big hard disk, does it mean increased taxing?)
    - Desktop (did anyone hear a computer playing music?)
    - Servers (yep we all know Microsoft Servers operating systems come preloaded with Windows Media Player:) Humm.. a 2TB storage server can cost more in music TAX than the system itself.

  28. Re:Hmm.. just maybe... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's exactly my philosophy. Paying any sort of "piracy levy", in my opinion, fully justifies piracy in my mind. Hell, it stop being piracy because we're technically paying for it, and if we DON'T copy the media, we're being bilked!

    -Z

  29. Bad. by Renraku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  30. You most certainly can. by abb3w · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And in some state it is illegal not to pay taxes on illegal drugs.

    There are several jurisdictions that require tax stamps for marijuana; Kansas, for instance. Yes, it's mildly insane. On the other hand, the country's attitude about marijuana is pretty schizophrenic, and Kansas is a farm state after all....

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  31. Analogy by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. Open Letter to JENS by bratwiz · · Score: 2, Informative

    All I can say is "Right-Fucking-On"!

    FINALLY a company with BALLS.

    I bookmarked your site. I just found where I'm going to be doing my Christmas shopping.

    Tell those SLIMY BASTARD RECORD COMPANIES they can fold it twice and shove it where the sun don't shine.