Slashdot Mirror
California Lawmaker Proposes Music Download Tax
modemac writes "Sacramento, California Assemblyman Charles Calderon wants to expand a 75-year-old sales tax on 'tangible personal property' to include music downloads from iTunes and other music-download sites. The tax would specifically apply to music downloads, but the estimate used in this article for revenue generated by 'Net downloading also "includes pornography downloads." The measure, AB 1956, will be considered on Monday, April 14th."
Does that mean that, in California, we'd actually own the music files, and would not be able to be prosecuted for shifting those files, breaking the encryption, etc?
Also, what does "tangible" mean? To me, it means something a bit more permanent than bits on a disk. After all, if someone gets near it with a magnet, there goes your "tangible" property. The same cannot be said for a car, a bookshelf, a can of paint, etc.
Is it considered property when you don't "Own" it? If I owned the music that I downloaded, I could give it away for free, and not be breaking the law. Instead, I am told that I don't own it, and am violating the IP of company X. In a way, this law could be a great thing, as, if they can tax it, then you must own it. If you own it, you can do whatever you like with it. Of course, IANAL, so this could all just be a pipe dream on my part.
Doesn't tangible personal property imply it's a good I could re-sell?
If I buy an iTunes track, it's mine, sorta. But, I can't resell it, or give it away, or what have you. It's not tangible by any meaningful sense of that word. It's not like in a bankruptcy proceeding they could seize my music collection to help pay off my debtors.
And, porn? Really? They think people are gonna pay tax on all that free porn they're pulling off (ahem) the internet?
Seriously, yet another lawmaker who wants to monetize the internets to try to generate some cash or protect a special interest, and who doesn't actually know enough about the topic at hand to say anything reasonable. Hopefully, someone can slap some sense into him.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
in the digital world, there is very little difference between "viewing" and "downloading" so where will the line be drawn?
in the case of pr0n, even if you don't download it to your hard drive, if you can see it in your browser, you have downloaded it. (duh, you got the data somehow) would this same principle apply to net radio, streaming music, youtube, etc? makes you wonder how far they will run with it.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
Interesting, I've always paid state sales taxes on my iTunes downloads here in Maine. I never realized until now that some other states [who have sales tax] weren't doing the same.
This rasies a basic question: Which state can collect a tax on an Internet-based sale, the state where the seller operates or the state where the consumer makes the purchase?
Let's say I live in Vermont and I buy a song from iTunes, which is based in California.
Vermont claims that people owe it sales tax because they're in Vermont and buying something in another state that they could be buying here. If a Vermont resident goes to another state with no or lower sales tax to buy a car, Vermont requires that they pay Vermont's sales tax equal to the difference between the two when they register it in Vermont. There's also a section on Vermont tax returns that asks state residents to estimate the sales tax we would have paid if we'd bought something locally instead of through a Web site that, at present, implies that if they buy music through iTunes they should be paying state tax on the purchase.
The California proposal seems to think consumers are going, in a virtual sense, to California to buy my music. Because the transaction happens in California, they want to collect tax.
The Vermont requirement is apparently widely ignored and impossible to enforce unless the out-of-state business collects the tax for it. The California proposal would be enforceable only as long as the iTunes music store is hosted there. It would likely be moved off-shore if this proposal passes.
This will likely take Federal legislation or a Supreme Court decision defining the basis for where a tax is levied: on the location of the consumer or the location of the business. If the former, every business with a Web presence will have to incorporate 50+ different tax rules based on customer location, possibly more if they serve international customers.
It would be simpler would be to tax where the business is located, but then most states would object to the revenue loss and businesses would move their Web operations to states with low or no sales tax or off-shore (which would then likely cause Congress to pass legislation allowing states to tax their residents for out-of-state purchases anyway).
As always, it's about money which is of course is the root of all evil, which makes us a really evil society.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company