Slashdot Mirror
Spain Adds 'Copyright Tax' to Blank Media
Poker Forums writes "Just read on Zeropaid that Spain has recently voted in compulsory copyright licensing, levying a tax on all blank media. This includes cd-r, dvd-r, flash media, printers, scanners, cell phones, everything. The tax will be collected by the government and 'given to the copyright holder.'"
... given to a my ass...
The tax will be charged indiscriminately to manufacturers who, according to SGAE (our particular RIAA), are the ones taking advantage of all this """illegal""" copying (private copying for personal use with no money involved is still legal in Spain), and will mostly be given to this same organization. Problem is manufacturers are gonna pass the tax on to customers, and so the cycle of life closes.
And SGAE, of course, will use the money not to pay the authors, but to spread the word through adoctrination lectures, or to pay for lobbies to bully Brussels, or to cry louder about how bad people is and how poor authors are getting (despite SGAE's doubling benefits every year...).
The one improvement of this law is that now the tax has to be proportional to the cost of the medium; currently when we buy a DVD+R, the tax is higher than the price of the DVD itself... And stupidity didn't get to add DSL and Cable lines to the list, though they were in the top 10...
The title should read "Spanish politicians surrender to stupidity" (which wouldn't be so new, either), or sth similar...
My 0.02 cents
They just legalized copyright infringement.
...and misdirect the funds. That's what they do. Does it really matter which scumbag gets the money though? Politicians or "copyright holders".
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
open source and fsf and gnu? If someone buys soem cdr's and burn copies of free software, who gets paid?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Okay, if laws are in place to fairly compensate the copyright owners by taxing recordable media the offshoot of that should be continued "enjoyment" of what we've come to know as fair use. Ostensibly this tax should cover disbursements back to the artists for any copying and/or sharing consumers do.
A question from The Fine Article: "Is this an example of what is to come in the United States or other parts of Europe?", isn't this already a tax in place on recordable media in the United States? I seem to remember that a while back, or was it Canada?
Regardless, the entertainment industry can't have it both ways, they either tax in advance and anticipation of our "abuses", or they implement draconian DRM. Unfortunately it's looking like they're getting both.
So, who determines which copyright holders get what, and how much they get? Seems to me this is a system just ripe for abuse, with minimal controls on the right money getting to the right people... ... and, in other, no-way related news, I released a couple of songs I sung myself last year, and while I am a crappy singer/writer, I believe someone in Spain may be listening to my songs right now, and burning them and distributing them to their friends.
Can I have my check now, please?
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
To be able to manipulate governments so they force your business model to work.
I guess thats my problem I sell things if people don't buy them I have to do something else I never considered wrecking everyone else life so mine could be a little better
You'd have to be signed up with your correspondant copyright holding association, or start your own. Of course, since the losses can't be estimated, your share will only depend on your popularity. This means that if you are not well known (or not affiliated to any association) you may not receive a dime. Even if the whole country makes their own copy of your material.
My 0.02 cents
So that will make it legal to burn any media to CD/DVD as you are paying the copyright holder?....
Does this mean you can circumvent any DRM or other technical measures to protect the material on other media / files to burn them since you have paid this tax?....
Do I get tax back if I end up burning a coaster?....
Can you easily get tax back if its material you own the copyright to that you are burning?....
Does this include Software products and movie DVD rips and if so are you going to have to tell the media supplier what you intend to make copies of?....
Thought Not.
More accurate question might be:
Is this yet another revenue stream (on top of all the others) for someone somewhere who feels that their profits are not what they could be, and another kick to the teeth of fair use (If that exists in Spain)?
Yes.
Either prosecute people for copyright infringement (regardless how insane the laws surrounding that are) or leave the blank media alone. - By the way shouldn't the tax be on paper not Printers? after all the paper is the media. Mobile phones? Are they going to pay the copyright holders of the text messages I receive too?
If this is true then this is madness, and needs to be challenged before it spreads.
'given to the copyright holder.'
Which one? Bono or Spielberg?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...and it has still recently voted a DMCA like text.
They should tax brains too, you can store a lot of tunes into them, + it wouldn't be a huge cost for our lawmakers.
\u262D = \u5350
If your business model can't survive, get the government to legislates mandatory taxes that get passed onto you. I believe this concept is called either Communism (or similiar controlled economy) or Welfare. I don't know which.
I would have people make copies of my photos/minor_software_project/whatever on CD-R and then sue the Spanish RIAA if they don't send me my portion of payments. It's really odd that they represent ALL copyright holders. Like they represent ALL musicians, even the ones not signed up with RIAA companies. This RIAA racket has to be taken on and bought down in flames like the Hindenburg one day.
But....WHAT FUCKING Copyright holder?!?!? Are they going to just pay every fucking artist in the country some money from this, much like the federal universal service fee here in the states?!?!?! What a bunch of garbage!
----- I have bad karma for a reason! -----
In other words, their artists' profits are increasing faster than theirs. No wonder Spain needed a new tax!
It's worth pointing out, however, that this kind of infringement is a big thing in Spain. In the area I saw, it was so ingrained that they called it 'top manta' (manta == sheet), named after the sheet that the street-sellers of usually pirated music use, so that if the police come along, they can grab the four corners of the sheet, bundle the music into it instantly, and disappear.
I go through mountains of CDs and DVDs to back up files. I've never in my life downloaded any copyrighted music or software. If I was in Spain I'd be required to help pay for people illegally downloading? Why not send me a traffic ticket every month because some people speed?
I've never been a fan of these blank media taxes, but there is a way that could make this more palatable, to me at least.
I'm do support strong copyrights, but also a strong defense of fair use. I was a songwriter who did manage to eke out a modest living from sales and royalties back in the day (and considered breaking even on tour a rare event). But I always saw these blank media taxes (along with early forms of DRM like Copy Code) as an unfair burden on musicians and songwriters who are at that difficult early phase of their career arcs. It may be a small percentage of the cost of media, but in the long run it adds up, and it's money that could be better spent on things like more media, guitar strings, drum sticks, software, hardware, and the all important elixirs: coffee and beer.
And I never liked that the taxes collected went to the top tier of artists. For every one of these, a Springsteen, a Madonna, a Bono, there are 10,000 strivers, sequestered in a home studio, trying to get that vocal or cowbell track perfect.
So, I'd feel more comfortable if half of the funds levied by these taxes could benefit the unsigned, the unheard. Start with public school music programs, which are woefully underfunded as it is, and often fall victim to budget cuts. That's how I started out, a nine-year-old trumpet player in a grade school orchestra. Maybe there could be some sort of indie label lottery, where some band's vanity label gets a $10,000 infusion of funds, maybe even a promotional campaign sponsored by Maxell, Imation, TDK, Sony, or some other producer of blank media ("The stars of tomorrow use our CD-RWs today...").
Idealistic, I know. But why the hell not?
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
So let me get this straight, all you need to be is a copyright holder and you get free money from the Spanish government? I always thought my preschool performance of Mary Had a Little Lamb was good... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
TFA doesn't to a good job of defining things (in fact it's a bit misleading). "Compulsory licensing" does NOT simply mean taxing everyone for blank CDs and giving the money to publishers/artists/whoever. Compulsory licensing means YOU GET A LICENSE (permission to make copies), regardless of what the media companies want. It's the rights holders who are "compelled," not the users. The tax itself is the presumed "cost" of that license. There's supposed to be a quid pro quo here.
Truth be told, I'd be pretty happy to pay a few cents extra for each blank CD, etc., if it meant that all my (and others') private copying in unprotected formats was presumed to be legal/licensed. That's a good trade-off, and the resulting market pressures would likely cause a decrease in prices and a lack of DRM ($1.00 for a single restricted audio track? Come on!). My bet is that this would likely save lots of money in the long run.
But the parent poster is right -- the media companies are trying to get it both ways: getting this money without giving me any substantial license to DO anything. What are the Spanish people getting in return for this? Anyone care to elaborate?
1. Make a bunch of random crap and file for copyrights
2. ???????
3. Profit!!
I think this is true until further notice. The article was hardly and article, but what it did say did not mention how the money would be apportioned amongst the copyright holders. If I have copyrights on crap no one would buy, do I still get a cut?
Anyway, I've got to head out and make some stuff to copyright in Spain, and set up a bank account there.
That means you (the people) deserve everything they give to you...
Deleted
1. Publish a Blank CD
2. Get the government to collect royalties on blank media.
3. ????
4. Profit!
The Spanish people are now justified in copying whatever the hell they want. If they're being taxed for it, they might as well get to enjoy it.
bah.
Following history, revolutions and revolts, society usually seems to get to a certian point before collectivley it gets sick of tax burdons, restrictions on speech and creativity and then either a revolt or a revolution is staged.
In a digital age where we are dealing with Intellectual Property, digitial censorship and hidden taxes it makes me wonder just what excatly a revolt or revolution against it would be like?
I can't imagine thousands of people marching through the streets finding government officals and decapating them, but you would think we will eventually get to a point where everything just gets too much.
We are now in the 21st century and are beginning to see the downsides of all the technology we have adopted, in the late 90's it was promosing, now we are seeing new emerging ways to control us, deny us of fundamental rights and governements seem to be finding new ways to write laws and profit from it.
As a canadian who pays a similar tax on media, I have to disagree with your assesment.
This tax is one step further *away* from loosing your right to copy audio files. A step away from legally protected DRM.
And if you don't like the tax, buy harddrives. They are cheap, less likely to fail, and a lot easier to use. I have 30 movies and 8 *seasons* of television shows on one of my harddrives. Heck I'm too lazy to convert movies to XVID, I just dump them out raw. I have a flash based mp3 player and I set the auto-play options for audio cd's on my PC to just rip the thing. I view CDs/DVDs as an incovenince I am glad to be rid of.
Considering the pending obsolecence of shiny platic disks, this seems like a good thing for Spain. Enjoy the freedom to do what you want with your data while you have it.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
Except that's playing with words.
They can't nail you for copying a CD, or dumping a recording from one medium to another.
They can, however, nail you for unauthorized distribution which is what a majority of P2P transfers are.
Big Money.
Mark me as redundant by saying so if you like, but I don't think it can be said enough.
There are two things wrong with this action:
1. If the copyright organization (cartel?) can continue with civil and criminal law suits for infringement, then it is clear that this measure is not for the purpose of compensating copyright holders for illegal activity. (Theoretically, I should be able to purchase blank DVD media in Spain and set up a business where I copy copyrighted material and sell it to the public at an attractive price. After all, would I not have already paid for the right to do so by purchasing the media in Spain?)
2. If there is no way to know which artistic works are to be copied, then how will the money find its way to the artists whose works are being illegally copied? The answer is obvious. The money doesn't go to compensate artists, and if it does, it won't go to the artists affected in correct proportion.
I hope to see some serious retaliation against the "copyright industry." They have been going too far for too long. They write their own laws, they collect their own taxes, they perform their own criminal investigations and all but convict in their own courts. If ever there was something out of control, this situation defines it.
So where does this leave small businesses like me, who write software which is distributed to customers on CD/DVD. I either have to absorb this cost or pass it on, yet none of my actions are remotely related to the music industry or copywritten content (other than my own).
These sort of levies are grossly unfair because they target everyone, irrespective of the relevance.
Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
why is it the government's job to compensate artists for lossed due to illegal activity?
i work in a grocery store, do we get compensated every time some asshole runs out the door with a carriage full of meat and seafood? no of course not. does best buy get compensated by the government if someone jacks a trailer full of electronic gear? no.
what makes the music industry so special?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I am also a spaniard (too lazy to register, sorry) and I want to add that there are some things that the TFA doesn't mention:
The new LPI (Ley de Propiedad Intelectual == Intelectual Property Law) establishes a tax over any device capable of holding media (audio or video), such as CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, videotapes... but also iPods and pendrives. The preliminary draft of the law also included a tax over HDs but this was removed from the final draft due to outcry from computer distributors.
On the other hand, the old LPI (from 1996) forbade the copy of copyrighted content for redistribution to other people, but didn't mention anything about DRM. There was a legal item called "private copy", meaning that you can do one (and only one) copy of your copyrighted content for private use as a backup. Now, according to the new law, not only is specifically illegal to override any DRM scheme: the law also makes illegal the POSSESSION of any program intended for override DRM, such a DVD ripper, or any hardware intended for overriding other 'electronic countermeasures'.
Many people say that there is a patent contradiction here, since you are paying for a right that you can't actually use.
Previously, the rationale behind the tax was this 'private copy'. Now, the rationale is to compensate for the losses that the recording companies have when you copy content from one media to another: for example, since you can copy your old videotape movie to a DVD, you are not buying a DVD for a movie you already have; or you are not going to buy a MP3 for your iPod of a song that you already have on CD-audio.
And, funny thing, we have been paying the tax long before the new law was approved.
At least now the tax is a percentage of the value of the blank media; according to the previous "canon" (law) the tax was a fixed amount of money that was about a quarter of the blank media value, but since the prices went down and the tax didn't, today the final price of a DVD is 60% tax.
Also, some people say that since the tax has been extended to CD-DVD burners, you end paying the tax twice-on the media and on the recorder.
And no, you can't get a refund if you use your CDs to burn non-copyrighted content. For example, the ministry of justice is paying tons of money to the SGAE (think of a fusion RIAA+MPAA+AAP) because a copy of all the judicial proceedings on every court have to be stored in 'electronic form' (CD-r).
The SGAE, the law's main supporter, says that the final draft is not enough since doesn't include taxes over internet connections, HDs , and "any other format capable of holding or transferring copyrighted content"
As a side note, one of the SGAE top execs, who also happened to be an artist years ago, had to run out of a rock festival recently because the public was throwing stones at him; this story was mentioned on all news sources in spain, but all of them falied to mention the ultimate reason for the people's hate towards the exec.
How are printers blank media? Shouldn't they be taxing the paper?
this is despicable.
If I buy blanks to archive data to which I own the copyright (eg photos, home videos, etc)...
can I claim a tax deduction?
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
They need to tax paper, because that's used in photocopiers.
They need to tax food, because that's used in copyrighted recipes.
They need to tax scanners and digital cameras, because they can be used to capture images of copyrighted works.
They need to tax chairs, because the person doing the copying of copyrighted works usually sits in one.
They need to tax wood, because that's used in furniture upon which the equipment used to copy copyrighted works usually sits.
They need to tax magnets, because they can be used in speakers that a person can use to listen to copyrighted works.
They need to tax monitors, because they can be used to view.
Since the SGAE represents *all* copyright holders and collects funds on their behalf, we should expect the FSF (as the copyright holder of vast amounts of GNU software) and Linus (as the primary copyright holder for Linux) to receive a proportion of that income.
And the SGAE can't easilydodge that responsibility either, because to do so would be to accept that much media gets used for things other than music and videos, and that therefore the tax should not apply to all media.
Can't have it both ways.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I've got no kids but I pay for education, I have no car but I pay for roads...
Why should I be paying just because some selfish people decide to have kids/drive?
If you start fighting taxes for services you don't use, you'll end up a very bitter and lonely person.
No sig today...
The EU has been extremely vigilant to ensure that free trade can continue over the borders - even where local taxes are being compromised. USAians: It's like buying your stuff in a state with lower sales tax.
the EU has open borders. so use them!
try this webstore if your media levies are too expensive (and you live in the right country):
www.wesellcd.com
Their prices are about half of those in the cheapest local computer stores in Sweden (residents of other countries: Your savings may vary.), shipping costs not included. Hint: co-order with your friends and split the shipping costs if you find them steep.
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Since the SGAE represents *all* copyright holders and collects funds on their behalf, we should expect the FSF (as the copyright holder of vast amounts of GNU software) and Linus (as the primary copyright holder for Linux) to receive a proportion of that income.
I actually believe that if there is a branch of the EFF in Spain, they should argue exactly this. Does the law explicitly state what determins is a copyright holder?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
OTOH, since it's sometimes hard to prove IP rights violations, does this mean that monies collected through this tax but not restored to IP rights holders will be returned to the spanish citizenry from the SGAE?
what's that, the tax has no such mechanism? why does this utterly fail to surprise me?
ed
www.joshferguson.org