Slashdot Mirror
Download Taxes As a Weapon Against File-Sharing
An anonymous reader writes "An examination of a new "digital downloads" taxation law in Washington State suggests that files downloaded via file sharing programs may be covered by the law — meaning that you may be expected to pay taxes based on 'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.' Thus, if you were to download music or movies and not pay the taxes, would you be liable for tax evasion charges? How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?"
Does this cover VOD PPV as well?
or is tax part of the price?
I'll pay them 8.25% of what I paid for the song.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
So does this mean I will just have to pay taxes on the items I pirate, and not for the items themselves?
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
Don't forget to buy your drug tax stamps while you're at the post office.
agrees with this new tactic.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Technically whenever you order a product from another state and the seller doesn't withhold sales tax on the purchase, you're required to pay that sales tax in your state. Nobody does this -- so technically nearly everyone is guilty of this kind of tax evasion. How is this any different?
Tax evasion is what put Al Capone away.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
So, if I were to download an operating system, like Linux, or an IDE, like Eclipse, would I be liable for taxes on the price of similar offerings from Microsoft?
So if I were to download Ubuntu, would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7? Ultimate? Professional? Home starter?
That's how they finally caught Al Capone.
And send him to Jail.
From the article "If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product."
Does this mean that if you download Ubuntu you would have to pay taxes on the retail value of Windows or OS X since they are similar digital products?
That's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income, you still need to pay taxes on it.
That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars. No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
How do they plan to handle legitimate file sharing, e.g. content released without a fee or supported by voluntary sponsorship?
Do they plan to tax that too?
If they plan to handle it differently, how will they assess the legal status of the bits being shared?
If they plan to handle it the same, that seems grossly unfair to the artists and independent producers.
If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that. (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)
If somebody gave me $10,000 as a gift, I'd have to pay taxes on that. (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)
If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?
In almost every state, items purchased out-of-state must be declared and a "use tax" is due when imported. There is a reasonable exemption limit so you don't have to declare that bag of Cheetos you bought driving home from trip, but if you purchase a car in New Hampshire to avoid Massachusetts sales tax, you still owe money to Massachusetts, and they will collect it.
Just because you downloaded it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay gift/sale taxes. Taxes are part of life. Deal.
They already make you pay taxes on it ;).
to prosecute unwanted behavior for which the laws were never meant to be.
That's actually not that uncommon.
This stuff happens a lot in places like Burma (or whatever it's named now), Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and China.
Again the US is in lustre company.
He is correct.
Citate that!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So if I see a person or corporate entity using a spider/URL reference to some copyright material I can log the action and report them. great.
So I create a 6Gb data file. Size of movie, link it from my home page. If I see a google spider hit it I report the download to the IRS.
Fun times.
Time to create some tiny URL's and seed them in appropriate places.
I'll pay you 20 percent of the "market value" of the songs, which, since supply is, for all purposes, infinite, now equals zero dollars. In the meantime, I'll be going over to I2P and Freenet, and I recommend the rest of you join me. The internet is being whored out.
I'm selling copies of the bill for $10,000.00
If you live in Washington, think twice before you download
Maybe the Government would like to decide how much I need to live on, and keep the rest. Seems to be where they're going. Our Government is OUT OF CONTROL!
work because you have a large centralized company easily lassoed into the arrangement
but noncorporate entities?
outside the country?
dispersed and distributed?
ok, so you can go after the downloaders
so the downloaders download the free client that obfuscates the traffic as http requests and the like
basically: good luck mr. tax man, you're going to need it to get a dime
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If the state wants to go that route it should FIRST attempt to charge someone with failure to pay "sales or use tax" on stolen physical merchandise.
If that doesn't get shot down then maybe, just maybe, this will fly.
If you attempt this first a judge will just say "if taxes aren't owed on stolen physical goods, what makes you think they apply to information goods?"
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Charities and other non-profit organizations are tax free in the US.
Assuming I download a copy of Gimp (gpl and free software), does that mean that I now need to pay a tax equal to what I would have to pay if I bought a copy of Photoshop?
If you think deeply enough, you will have no single direction for your outrage.
We wouldn't need more taxes on trivial things if the current US government would stop spending money like candy.
As far as tax evasion is concerned. Al Capone has actual $$ income. The thing that is being muddled is that a download of an item from illegal methods constitutes direct income. When in fact there is no $$ income at all. Politicians would like for us to view it as money that comes out of thin air, just like the US government and printing money it doesn't have.
It doesn't matter if the RIAA pushes this claim, it matters if the Washington state equivalent of the IRS pushes this claim. The RIAA doesn't engage in criminal prosecutions -- it files civil suits, and you can't sue someone the grounds they they owe a third party money. If if your local tax board takes this approach, it doesn't seem to change the equation: there are already significant legal sanctions in place for illegal fire sharing and this doesn't seem to add much to the balance.
I would argue that Windows cannot be made comparable to Linux, therefore a more similar product to Ubuntu would be FreeBSD.
And from the opposite perspective, the law specifically mentions that only "if the purchase price doesn't reflect the true value" do we get to the "value of similar products". Since it's difficult to see how the price of Windows has any relation to "value", does that mean that if I purchase Windows for $299, I should only pay the tax based on say a retail version of Slackware ($45 @ the local Fryes)?
It occurs to me that if this happens, it has the potential to be applied to anything else that's covered by copyright. Consider the results.
If you check a book out from your local library and read it, you'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book (at a book seller of the prosecution's choice).
If you leave a newspaper (hey, remember them?) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it, they'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper, but for a subscription to the newspaper.
If your local school has textbooks that they let students study from, those students (or their parents) will be liable for the sales tax on the price of the books.
If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be (sitting at a table in a restaurant, using an elevator, walking by on the sidewalk), you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.
Since everything is by default copyrighted as soon as it's "published" (whatever that actually means), any time you read anything from any source or hear anything that was recorded, you will be required to learn the retail price for the copyrighted work, and pay the sales tax on it.
We've been in the habit of being a bit bemused by the fact that, when the authorities don't have any evidence against some supposed criminal, they customarily just charge them with tax evasion. But this is no longer just something that big-time Mafia capos and politicians have to worry about. Now we can all be tax evaders, by merely reading something somewhere and neglecting to determine its retail sales price so we can pay the sales tax.
And I can make you a criminal by merely putting copyrighted text somewhere that you read it, or by putting recorded sound somewhere that you hear it.
It can be fun to think of what might be the ultimate motive for passing laws like this. Look up the phrase "nuisance law" for further explanation.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
They'll make a lot of money off downloads of OpenOffice.org... which is similar to the outrageously priced Microsoft Office.
Under the "strict" reading, can't this also be applied to various open source projects?
For instance, GIMP is a powerful image manipulation program, that to some rivals Adobe's Photoshop and Corel's Paint Shop.
And if this asinine law were to be strictly applied to this program, it could be disastrous. Especially considering the $500 or so price tag of Photoshop (Paint Shop can be as little as 20 bucks to 50 bucks depending on various rebates).
What about Debian? Wasn't there an article just recently on Slashdot that calculated the cost it took to develop Debian 5?
Or Ubuntu?
Or Chrome/Firefox/Opera?
And don't forget independent or forward-thinking musicians and artists (including writers) who publish their digital works online for free.
How will they be affected? Will this law become another tool for big corporations and entities to abuse to kill off the independent artists?
Some things to think about, especially since they do say that the devil is in the details.
I'm not an American... you insensitive clod.
Me and the Baldwins are leaving the country. If they'll still let us out.
Let's see if I know my math... (the price I paid) x (the tax rate) still = 0 cuz I paid nothing... if anything this will encourage piracy, cuz then you don't have to pay tax!
http://www.beanleafpress.com
It's your country.
It's your national defense.
It's your crumbling infrastructure.
It's your overcrowded classrooms.
It's your national debt.
Do your citizenly duty and pay your taxes or else leave.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
First people get sued for imaginary losses, then they get taxed for imaginary gains. Maybe we should just give both the RIAA and the government open access to our bank accounts, and let them take whatever they want without having to make up a reason.
Can't there be any other solution to a problem than taxing something?
I will be glad for them to fight online piracy once police have cleaned up the streets. Once murder, rape, burglary, bank robbing, drink driving and so on are under control then the police can focus on copyright infringement.
- Create album. - Set the price @ 100billion. - Let it "leak" onto a culturesharing site. - Wait untill someone stumbles upon it. Profit !
If they want to tax us for the alleged value of a downloaded file, then shouldn't we be able to claim a tax loss if that file gets deleted?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
When did the 'buyer' become responsible for paying sales tax to the government? I thought that the seller collected the sales tax from the buyer to give to the government. Are they going to come after me for the sales tax on a CD I bought at a local store if the seller doesn't send in the tax?
I acquired it back in the days when using the Series of Tubes was tax free.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
how come the EFF and others aren't fighting this?
It's just a sensationalist headline for Slashdot. The EFF may have better things to do than chase down these particular windmills.
We occasionally get articles that take a law, interpret it in an Orwellian way, and lament the results. You can do it with almost any law, but taxes have the additional benefit of being scary.
So I will have to pay a tax on a free podcast?
Just because some podcasts aren't free.
0 CPU * $20,000/CPU = $0
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Subject says it all. We should tax them with a noose. Pitchforks anyone?
No sales tax.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a liberal state legislature like Washington state's would look to taxation as the solution to any and all problems. Spending more money than you have? Raise taxes. Underestimate costs of various state functions? Taxes. Kids drinking too much alcohol? Tax it to the tune of >50% of the total cost between local, state, and Federal taxes. Kids downloading music? Hit them with tax evasion.
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Nobody does this
[citation needed]
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So this is how they can get it in. So far, they have to go and "hunt" the filesharers themselves. That way, they can hand over that burden (and the cost) to the country (i.e. you and me) to deal with their problem.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Some might say this not retailers setting a base price, but the government, so it is ok. I think, though, this is still in effect price fixing, a it sets, at least within a state, a fixed priced for a given product. Though this may not result in a fixed price, which only lead to increase inflation as retailers are forced to overcompensate when price adjustments are allowed, it is certainly still an unwarranted obstruction of the free market.
If this is allowed, what is next? Minimum taxes on each transaction at the grocery store. If I want too offer buy two, get on free, do I have to pay taxes as if I bought three items? Do I have to pay tax on the total before the coupon?
I am absolutely in favor of taxes, after all the roads need to be fixed, the soldiers need a fair chance of getting a new leg when the original gets blown off, children need to be educated, but the tax must be based on real product or services. This will be the beginning of a serious problem. Just imagine getting advice for you computer from a professional. No charge, buddy, but the retail value fo my time is $200, so I have to charge you fifteen bucks in tax.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I guess I need to look up the retail price of Oracle.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
So if I was to upload pirated movies
*bludgeons you repeatedly* WERE, WERE. This is not Kentucky!
"was" and "were" as used here are both correct -- which shows the AC's ignorance.
:-)
The only nit pick you can make is that the subjunctive mood of "was" in this case (probably) isn't as correct as "were" in this sentence. If given the choice, "were" is a better fit because the sentence implies something that (probably) isn't something the GP was going to do, but if the GP were really considering claming pirated movies, then "was" would actually be the most appropriate word choice.
The best choice is merely subjective. By the way, I used to live in KY... I'm sorry the educational system failed you so miserably.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
then yes, you need to declare them;However they can not share what you put in your taxes with any government body without a court order specifically requesting information on specific tax situations.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The government is not entitled to my money/possessions in a free society. Taxes should be used solely for things that I benefit from that the government does with my permission. Anything else is unjust.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
They cannot tax on value, only on price paid.
If they taxed on value, then all of those as seen on tv ads would be horrendously tax expensive...
"For only 2 payments of 19.95, a 500.00 value"....
Wow - taxes on 500.00, when only spent 19.99 (plus separate processing)...
Since a song, when downloaded is only worth $1.00 (maybe $2.00) in some circles (if downloaded legally) - then the taxable rate is on $1.00 or $2.00..
If they try to tax it based on their 10,000 times value damages - then it's overtaxation....
If you paid nothing to download, then there is no tax - if you don't get caught, otherwise their may be penalties (other than taxes) applied (if you share it back out).
Is it possible to set the purchase price at zero? I declare that everyone who downloads from my torrent is buying from me at the price of $0.00.
How would they know if you downloaded an item illegally? If they knew someone downloaded movies, then why wouldn't the FBI already be on their front step because of those FBI warnings? To me this seems about as practical as the war on drugs.
Its how they finally nailed him. Couldn't catch him actually doing anything wrong so they crafted this backdoor way to nab him.
Of course one thing the RIAA will not think of is that if there are convictions/fines via this route, they wont get a dime.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So let's suppose I download a cracked version of Spore, removing all the locks, DRM, etc. Needless to say, there is no similar version in the market, and the version I downloaded is of significantly higher value. How will I be taxed? I can imagine the government will try to tax me even more, because it is an enhanced version
If someone gives you money in the state of Washington, is there a gift tax ? .. since file sharing is essentially someone giving something to someone else, how could you tax it ? .. As to Federal, anyone can give anyone else, up to $12,000 with no tax to either party... and then when it goes beyond the 12 grand it is not the burden of the recipient to pay tax, but on the giver. (up to something like a whopping 45 percent)
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
You're thinking about it the wrong way 'round.
The price of Photoshop, when compared to a similar product, is $0. Likewise, the market value of Windows is also $0.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Google is your friend. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/ Interesting story.
Even if.....I don't see it even remotely enforceable. How about if I download something from China owned by someone in Washington and I live in Alaska. (Alaskans are exempt from paying sales taxes in Washington state with proof of residency). How many man hours would be spent figuring that out?
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
And it's a pretty good one: get OneSwarm and use it. Once it become popular, it will be very nice.
If they don't know you have it, they can't tax you on it.
Here's a citation: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/676/DLNR-Reopens-Polihale-Volunteer-energy-helps-State-get-the-job-done.aspx/ It was not bridge repair though, it was road and water system repair at a remote and isolated park beyond the end of the paved highway. Nice park, people drown there every year, nearly got me once...
There was a gentleman here on /. not long ago looking for a project to put to use 78 USB thumbdrives.
Save 'em dude. They might just be the next big thing in file-sharing. Hand-to-hand file exchanges are damn near impossible to track and even harder to tax. And with so many, no big deal if one of them doesn't make it back to you after is has completed it's mission.
A while back there was an article here on how someone with a homemade electric car was charged for tax evasion on account of the gas tax he wasn't paying. Is Open Source going to become tax evasion because you aren't buying something much more expensive? What will the minimum "non-fraud" price be for an OS, for a word processor?
They got the money and the will to make it happen and all I can do is bend over.
There, fixed that for you..
I'm sure they need even more of my hard earned money to screw up with. The have their hand in my pocket far to deep already, they need to learn to live within their means, just like the rest of us.
Zeros are free, but Ones will cost ya!
Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
So vote for Democrats;
They are really swell!
They'll tax your Internet,
And drive the economy to hell!
But you knew all that;
And voted for them anyway,
Because you hated Bush!
Welcome to the change that you voted for last year. Be prepared to pay a lot more in taxes, as state after state does the same thing.
KA-CHING!
I honestly cannot believe it after all the hype last year, but the Obama administrations sucks.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Connect motion sensors and wire them into your alarm system.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Please keep in mind in Maine it is still illegal to ride a bicycle underwater.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
If I download malware, with a negative value, do I get money from the state?
How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?
If I take the bet and you win, make sure to report the gain on your tax return.
Illegality to be made illegal, news at 11
Tax our water too.
We need to spend more money. We have a credit card society. Spend Spend.
The purpose of copyright according to the US Constitution is: [emphasis mine]
to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries
-USPTO US Constitution Article 1, Section 8
So: if copyright is extended why is it extended in the past tense to the benefit of licensees who create nothing rather than creators? They have paid for the right to the work or creation as it was and they'll pay no more for the increase - what is the social benefit of increasing their monopoly on it? Why do the extra years of protection not by default fall to the creators? This does not increase the incentive of an author to create -- the creator of the work or invention since licensed profits not at all from the extension. This isn't about motivating the creative to create. It's simple theft of the common wealth of culture for the benefit of people who had nothing to do with creativity or invention.
If copyright is extended then assigns and licensees ought to be excluded as a matter of course. To increase the benefit of ownership of their non-created libraries adds absolutely no motivation to creation or invention. And perhaps that's the point -- they intend no invention, creation or innovation. They only mean to increase the value of their intellectual property holdings. They have stolen from us a hundred years of culture and intend to provide nothing in return. That's not the purpose of copyright or patent.
I'm all for divesting these criminals of their ill-gotten goods immediately, and apparently the Internet is with me here.
I have no hope that our publicly-funded-campaign politicians will achieve the goal of restoring reason to copyright and patent. What's left is the anarchy of an oppressed people: they will take what's theirs, regardless of an unfair law. So it is that the only effect of the ??AA is to push us further toward anarchy in their pursuit of profits.
Somebody is going to reply that I want to divest the creator of his creation immediately, but I don't. I want to restore the respect that innovation and authorship used to have -- where the common man paid for his book or movie to the benefit of the creator, rather than evading the dire requirements of his publisher and hence escaping his due fee.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
that this is exactly where the term "intellectual property" came from, even though legally there is no such thing. "They" want you to equate it with regular forms of property (even though it is not), and so equate infringement with theft. It is not.
How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?
I wouldn't bet a penny on that, I think. I must admit I haven't been able overcome my nausea enough to study what the RIAA actually do in detail, but as far as I can see they earn money on bullying alleged "pirates", right? As tax is something that is paid to the state, RIAA wouldn't make money from it, and I doubt they are actually all that keen on stopping their source of income.
If so, and given that there are, according to the RIAA maths, QUADRILLIONS of dollars of "content" there, then 8.25% of that is a SHITLOAD of cash. Even if you say "well, it's only a 20% increase, so it's 20% of that", it's still a massive wedge, isn't it.
Im in AU, so dont exactly know how the law is to be used. But assuming the law was applied in Australia I was thinking much the same way as other people "so if i've downloaded ubuntu, can they screw me".
At first I was thinking, so a "similarly priced retail product" would be Vista, XP or OSX and I was thinking "So is this a tool for Microsoft and other commercial people to take advantage of", i.e. push people even further away from OSS (or commercial alternatives). As such, Vista in AU costs about $500 for the full retail version, i.e. $50 tax. There is very little advantage in this for MS and RIAA (etc) because all that will happen is that you'll go to jail and rather then being a possible consumer of their products you'd become a non-consumer. MS could never see a cent because its government tax and I never pirated MS software.
The second thing was, "ok, lets assume the similarly priced retail version of ubuntu is a cd with ubuntu burned on it". Again, (at least in AU) there are places that sell these (for very reasonable prices, i.e. the cost of the media + case + shipping and no more than that). The point being that if you did download ubuntu and not pay tax to the govt then yes you would be committing tax evasion.
Im not sure if there are places in the US (there would have to be wouldn't there?) that do similar but there are several place in AU where you could buy many many popular OSS products burned and cased on CD for you (again, for very very fair prices, they're not doing it to make a dime out of selling "Free" software, they're doing for advocacy reasons).
People above are saying that the "price of open office for the similarly prices physical version is 0.00" (or whatever the wording was) but it is not $0.00 and hence is taxable and hence downloading it and not paying taxes would be a violation of the law.
However, it sounds like a tool of a draconian government that isnt interested in screwing average joe, he's interested in getting people the way they got Al Capone - i.e. we cant prove you broke the law by killing people, but you downloaded ubuntu and didn't pay the tax on it, off to jail you go.
Now the way this would work in AU would never be able to benefit MS, the RIAA or similar because they would take no part in the case. The RIAA might report you as a person who's not paying taxes, but they could never reap any rewards for it (ironically, if you did pay some extra tax just to cover yourself, you'd probably be safe). Once the State took on the case (if they had evidence) then the RIAA could never say "ok, pay us $5000 and the problem goes away" - this itself would also be illegal (not only for the RIAA but also the State).
MS might benefit from locking away some OSS advocates, but I doubt even MS would stoop quite that low. They're more interested in conversions and the bad publicity from such a move would probably not be worth it (especially if it was some high profile person like Linus Torvalds).
They just forgot the fact, that the internets are god.
You will always get it for free.
The real fun is by double jeopardy, all you'd have to do is pay tax to make the download legal. They can't go after you for both copyright infringement and tax evasion for the same act. Sooooo, offer to pay the taxes, and boom cheaper media. Paying "just the tax" on movies and what not is still a lot better than retail.
Specially since even the older movies sitting on shelves these days cost a lot more than they used to. I remember just a year or two ago being able to find a whole bunch of random movies [new no less] for $9 or so. Now the same type of movies go for $16 or more. It's not like "Red Dawn" or whatever got any better over the last year. They're [the retailer, MPAA, etc] just more greedy. I've gone to the local media warehouse store three times now this year, and every single time I walked out without buying anything. It's such a disappointment.
What do they do when you don't pay your taxes?
They come to your house with guns and take away your stuff.
Again, they try to hit pirates hard by bludgeoning the legit customers. That's like Wal-Mart curbing shoplifting by having a couple of employees stand by the exits to beat everybody holding shopping bags with baseball bats, hoping that the pain will trickle down to the thieves.
Next they'll tax the air you breath and the rain that falls on your property. If you think that's far fetched, there was a report the other day about a western state that made it legal to collect the rain that used to run off your house. Since it was illegal, and is now legal, it must be income, and thus taxable.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I think we should start mailing checks for 8 1/2 cents....
LOTS of checks.... no particular reason we need to combine them all into one big check, it doesn't cost us anything to mail separate checks.
How much does it cost them to process a check nowadays? 10 cents?
No reason we should have to spend anything on postage either....
This is merely hackery using legislation; the creation a tax law to be used as a form of punishment. This is similar to what they did with refrigerants.
-- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
I just read the law pdf. I would guess the worst part of this
would be for services like 'mozy' or 'IDISK' or any other remote network file system. There are no exemptions for any type of private or public off site file storage systems. Anytime you pull a file from a networked disk - you technically have to pay the tax all over again for it.
Once again, people with no clue about how technology works mucking up the system.
Well the politicians don't make laws so YOU can win.
It's your own fault really. When was the last time you gave a suitcase of money or a hooker to a politician? (the bailout doesn't count they spent that already)
If you read the link to the information on the law (Another step beyond the article), you will see an exemption for items intended to be free. For some of the others, the law also specifically excludes Computer Software.
This law (Like all other sales tax laws). Requires the seller to have a substantial nexus within the state in order to compel them to collect and report sales. This does not make the consumer less liable for the tax they owe, but does not make collections problematic.
Reading the law will show you what it is. A poorly written law that is largely unenforceable which will be passed by legislators who will spend less dime reading and debating it than the average /. user has. The law is full of concessions to lobbyists. It includes online services, but not online travel services. Finally for those of you asking about newspapers:
19 Sec. 506. RCW 82.08.0253 and 1980 c 37 s 21 are each amended to
20 read as follows:
21 (1) The tax levied by RCW 82.08.020 ((shall)) does not apply to:
22 (a) The distribution and newsstand sale of printed newspapers; and
23 (b) The sale of newspapers transferred electronically, provided
24 that the electronic version of a printed newspaper:
25 (i) Shares content with the printed newspaper; and
26 (ii) Is prominently identified by the same name as the printed
27 newspaper or otherwise conspicuously indicates that it is a complement
28 to the printed newspaper.
29 (2) For purposes of this section, "printed newspaper" means a
30 publication issued regularly at stated intervals at least twice a month
31 and printed on newsprint in tabloid or broadsheet format folded loosely
32 together without stapling, glue, or any other binding of any kind,
33 including any supplement of a printed newspaper.
It appears washington state does not tax them..
So the Tivo'd/taped shows you have should be taxed as if you had purchased the shows on DVD?
The fish you caught (with a fishing license) should be taxed as if you bought it at the market?
OpenSolaris should be taxed as if you bought Solaris?
Linux should be taxed as if you bought SCO UNIX? Okay, that last one was a joke, but the others seem to be logical extensions of this "plan".
TFS appears to want to make this sound official, so refers to "an examination of the law". Well, if you read TFA, some guy read a section of the law and in his opinion it could mean ... blah, blah, blah. "Some guy" is identified as "Nate" in TFA; since I don't read techdirt I can only guess that regular readers do know who that is; but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't appear any lawyers were involved in this discussion.
And while certainly IANAL, it is plain to my eyes that few if any lawyers are involved in the discussion here on slashdot as well. All this "Al Capone" bs, and the back-and-forth "I can come up with a more coy interpretation than you can" nonsense, mean nothing. It doesn't matter what is or isn't income, or what is or isn't an inocme tax deduction. It doesn't matter what is or isn't traditionally sales tax. We're talking about a specific state law that either does, or dosen't, assign value to files downloaded illegally and tax that value.
I've only just started reading the law in question, and won't have time to finish it until tonight at the earliest, but the part I found most interesting so far was the definition of "Electronically Transfer":
(8) "Electronically transferred" or "transferred electronically" means obtained by the purchaser by means other than tangible storage media. It is not necessary that a copy of the product be physically transferred to the purchaser. So long as the purchaser may access the product, it will be considered to have been electronically transferred to the purchaser.
I don't know how this act intends to define 'purchaser', but it's certainly playing fast and loose with "obtained". Maybe they mean to avoid letting streaming media be exempt; maybe they want to apply the tax at the moment of sale even if the actual download occurs later... but in a non-sale context like a p2p server, at what point is it first the case that I "may access the product"? It seems to me that anyone may access the entire catalogue... so is every freely-available file on the Internet deemed to have been transferred to every Internet-connected citizen of Washington?
And don't forget embedded taxes including cost of compliance and other "employer paid" taxes that obviously can't make the product cheaper. VAT is just the most obvious tax that drives up the price paid by the consumer. I would love to be wrong cause a VAT is being proposed in the US right now, but VAT isn't the only taxes companies are required to pay, right? They still have corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and the variety of taxes called "insurance policies", which all become part of the cost of doing business, and so of course become a part of the unit price for any product, which is always bought with money the consumer has after their own taxes are paid.
Of course, just adding things up, of course not criticizing it necessarily, because those taxes are going towards government programs that make the world a better place for everybody, right?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.'
.iso file, I'll be taxed based on the retail price of Microsoft Windows? This is a law (not yet existing) that is just begging to be challenged (when and if it finally does exist).
So if I download a Kubuntu
Nothing to see here. Move along.
What happens when you download Linux or FreeBSD? If you look at the article and related links, the Q&A states:
What is the value of the digital product for use tax purposes?
The value is the purchase price of the digital product. If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.
To me, that means one could download an Operating System (legally) and owe taxes on the value of similar Operating Systems.
See section 304 subsection 5 of the actual bill for this text:
(5) "Value of the digital good or digital code used" means the purchase price for the digital good or digital code, the use of which is taxable under this chapter. If the digital good or digital code is acquired other than by purchase, the value of the digital good or digital code must be determined as nearly as possible according to the retail selling price at place of use of similar digital goods or digital codes of like quality and character under rules the department may prescribe;
...which to me is very open ended. But not that the official document even has that section underlined.
The whole tax evasion angle ... this is how they got AL CAPONE!
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
This is the same tactic that the gubmint takes with those who illegally distill their own spirits. They are charged with not paying taxes on liquor. That's why all the old moonshiners ran from the "Revenewers" and we got NASCAR. I wonder what new sport we'll get when the Revenewers start chasing them downloaders?
Let's go the other way.
There is lots of free software out there. You can download images of several OSes for free.
So, the tax you pay for your outdated, no longer legally sold Windows XP OS ... $0