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?"
I'll pay them 8.25% of what I paid for the song.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Don't forget to buy your drug tax stamps while you're at the post office.
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 Ubuntu, would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7? Ultimate? Professional? Home starter?
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.
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.
Um, check your math. You'd owe $60. It'd be 60 cents for each movie.
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.
So if I was to upload pirated movies, could I claim a tax deduction for their value as well?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Charities and other non-profit organizations are tax free in the US.
So downloading Debian would be tax free, but downloading Ubuntu (which BTW is Swahili for "couldn't install Debian") from Canonical Ltd. would be taxable?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
It isn't the government's fault. It is the people. Collectively we make unreasonable demands and expect government to magically meet those demands. We want the best roads, best fire departments, best police, etc, etc etc, but we aren't willing to do anything ourselves about the problems.
In Hawaii there was a bridge out that lead to an important tourist area, no bridge meant no business. The government said $4 million and 2 years. The locals people got together and did it in 8 days for "free" with donations from the community.
Our government is only "out of control" because we have demanded that it fill every whim and desire we have.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
*bludgeons you repeatedly* WERE, WERE. This is not Kentucky!
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
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.
Start a Church: Our Lady of the Eternal File Share.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well... the existing bridge fell down, so maybe they figure one they build themselves can't do so much worse that it's worth being totally cut off for two years?