France Considers 'Pirate Tax' For Online Ads

angry tapir writes "A report commissioned by the French Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterrand, urges the introduction of a tax on online advertising such as that carried by Google, which would be used to pay the creators of artistic and other works that lose out to online piracy."

Comments

The old Motto:

[rockclimber]

Tax whatever you cannot understand. The question is: would that legalize downloading / Sharing since the artists are supposed to get payed?

Re:The old Motto:

[nacturation]

Better idea: tax creators of artistic works and use it to pay online advertisers who lose money due to fraudulent clicks.

Oh, and the word is paid. </obgrammarnazi>

Re:The old Motto:

[Yvanhoe]

Of course not, as was demonstrated by our tax on blank CD/DVDs.
I think piracy is not the issue here. Sarkozy has tried to take control of most media in France. Now Internet he doesn't understand and he definitely doesn't like. Sounds like his mindset to attack the biggest visible gun in the "field" to try to gain some control : Google. But this bullet is a miss, like most French IT legislation this will be badly implemented and never used in court.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

I run an ad company that might be minuscule compared to google/yahoo, but does serve text ads worldwide, with web front-ends in America and UK.

Our office, back-end and banking are in Asia. Why would I give France the time of day?

Re:The old Motto:

[ShakaUVM]

>>The question is: would that legalize downloading / Sharing since the artists are supposed to get payed?

Of course not.

And would artists actually see any of this money?

Of course not.

Re:The old Motto:

[Rogerborg]

Governance 101: The universal tax on potential Badness will go to pay for prosecuting and fining people who are actually caught doing Badness.

Re:The old Motto:

[sopssa]

The tax on blank CD/DVD's never was about legalizing illegal copying, but it was to subsidize those who were hurt by it. You can have both, but simple people probably think that the tax was there to allow your illegal activities.

Re:The old Motto:

[purpledinoz]

What I don't understand is: What is the connection between online advertising and illegal downloading of media? Those are completely unrelated. Aren't they?

Re:The old Motto:

[Foobar of Borg]

What I don't understand is: What is the connection between online advertising and illegal downloading of media? Those are completely unrelated. Aren't they?

You see, they are both done on the Internet. The internet is this scary thing that people like Sarkozy don't understand and want to control.

So, no, they are not at all related. It only seems that way to the ignorant.

Re:The old Motto:

[sirlark]

Ah, someone else who uses adblock :-)

Try disabling adblock on a torrent site or other 'place of badness' on 'The Internet'... then after you have, clean your disk of all the malware, in fact wipe your hard drive and install a fresh system, in fact: just nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure

Re:The old Motto:

[HungryHobo]

So if I want to use CD's for storing data I have every right to I have to give money to Brittany spears.
To make it fair how about we put a "subsidy tax" on artists who can't make decent work but who are getting subsidised and give it to people who are being hurt by that, ie me and everyone else who has no interest in music.

Re:The old Motto:

[Twisted Willie]

If I have to pay extra for a blank CD to compensate for the pirating I'm suspected of using it for, then why shouldn't I use it for pirating? After all, I've already paid the fine, might as well do the crime.

Note: I live in the Netherlands, where it's still not illegal to copy/download movies or music, yet I still pay the extra tax on blank media.

Re:The old Motto:

[sopssa]

Notice that I never said it was the correct thing to do, I just told why its being done. Lots of pirates seem to think it's some kind of free pass for downloading whatever they like and it somehow makes it legal.

Re:The old Motto:

[sopssa]

This is exactly what I mean. You're thinking simply that because you are paying extra for subsidizing piracy, you somehow get the permission to pirate whatever. That is NOT the case.

Exactly the same on extra note, and it used to be the same too where I live. The extra tax isn't there to 'allow' you to pirate whatever. It's there because it's known it happens, and it's there to subsidize some of the value back. It is not a "you are allowed to pirate" tax.

Like with everything, you can blame the group that does bad things for your increased costs. Do you think it is the store that loses money if someone steals from them? No, the lost value will be taken from other customers in increased prices.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

French common sense wins out again (and i'm from the UK, so it takes a lot to say that sarcastically). I can imagine what the convo would have been:

Minister: We need to find some way of recompensing the record compa... sorry ARTISTS for the money they're losing to piracy.

Junior Minister: We could always tax online advertising?

Minister: What does online advertising have to do with media piracy? There's no connection there!

Junior Minister: And your problem is? Anyway, there's a nice envelope from the "artists" waiting on your desk.

Minister: Good point! Set it up. *Evil Chuckle*

Re:The old Motto:

[kemenaran]

There is no connection, of course. In France we *love* to tax unrelated business one for each other. Last year, to compensate the lifting of advertising on public TV channels, the french government decided to tax the telcos and the ISPs. Why ? Because they're making money, so why not ? The tax has not to make any sense, it has to tax successful businesses that make money. Oh, plus Google is evil and want to scan our beautiful books — you see, another reason !

Re:The old Motto:

[ta bu shi da yu]

I have a better idea. Impose a tax on undertakers because murder causes enormous harm and economic loss to society.

Re:The old Motto:

[JustOK]

I use CD Arrs for pirated stuff.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the official stance is that the "redevance " (it is claimed not to be a tax) is fair compensation
for the legal private copies not the illegal ones. Of course it's bullshit but that's the official stance.
At least in France. Now the "conseil d'etat" has struck down the computation of the "redevance pour copie privee"
one or two years ago for having included in their computation of the "tax" the losses due to piracy.

If you can read French here's the decision
http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Conseil_d%E2%80%99%C3%89tat_-_298779

Re:The old Motto:

[Hognoxious]

This is exactly what I mean. You're thinking simply that because you are paying extra for subsidizing piracy, you somehow get the permission to pirate whatever. That is NOT the case.

I think one of you is talking legally and one is talking morally.

For me, if you've paid for something you're entitled to have it.

Re:The old Motto:

[TikiTDO]

If I pay for something, it is only logical that I have the right to do it. This has, is, and will be the basis of our economic system for quite a while yet. As such, since I have paid for this supposed piracy, I am owed a debt by those receiving this tax money. Note that this is quite different from paying normal taxes; in that case my money will go to improve society as a whole, which I consider to be my own repayment of the debt I owe for being a part of this society. By contrast, this money goes to a very small group of very well off people because they feel that they are losing out on something. In other words I am quite literally paying a fee because they said so.

You have stated that this is not the case, but as of yet have presented exactly zero valid arguments to support your point. Consider the fact that this piracy subsidy is based on a quite obviously flawed idea wherein every download equates to lost money. I will not even get into details about the intrinsic value of a pirate, such as the free advertising of good products potentially resulting in a sale that may not have happened otherwise. I have written a /. post on that before, if you are particularly interested. Regardless whether someone knows that piracy happens or not, this does not give them the right to charge me a fee that goes to provide no services for me, and no services to society as a whole. Once again, we return to the fact that I am owed a debt, and I will most surely collect.

Finally, your store example is incorrect. It is indeed the store that loses money. Pricing of products is a difficult game, and few consumers will accept an increase in price just because the store had a bad day with thieves. This is why you sometimes see stories of people losing their livelihood because they have been robbed. Granted, a store might potentially use a part of their profits to cover for stolen articles, but this is a whole different story from a government enforced tax on a product that only benefits one specific group of people that has nothing to do with the development, production, or sale of the product. So in other words, you are trying to compare a situation where a store might get 10% profit on an item, and use 2% to finance lost articles, and a situation where an unrelated third party gets 100% profit on an item, because they managed to lobby their way to such a subsidy.

Cause and Effect. Debt and Repayment. All things in the universe must be balanced. Asking people not to is like asking the sun not to shine. It is certainly entertaining to see you try, but sad at the same time.

Re:The old Motto:

[Hognoxious]

the "redevance " (it is claimed not to be a tax) is fair compensation
for the legal private copies not the illegal ones.

If the private copies are legal (by some kind of fair use law or whatever) then how is any compensation due at all?

Like you say, it's bullshit. I'm sure it'll mostly end up in the pockets of government officials anyway.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

With Gordon Brown in bed with Nicky, we end up with the same thing in the UK. If it's making money, tax it! If you're making more money than the average person, we'll tax you! However if you are making a ton of cash and have the mechanism to get it out of the country to a tax haven, then the gov turn a blind eye! Top 50 earners in the UK rake in about £126bn, out of that the total amount of tax paid was 0.14%! If you earn more than £35,000 a year in the UK, you get taxed at 40%! You own a car, you get taxed according to the engine size! You own a TV, you pax a tax! You have ADSL/broadband connection, you will be taxed from next year! My Yanky friends, Petrol/Diesel tax....ready for it....87%! Yep, for every £1 on fuel, 87p goes straight into Gordon's pocket!

Re:The old Motto:

[Yvanhoe]

We have a constitutional principle that says that each new tax must have a benefit for the population. Here, the link has never been proved between taxing supports and supporting culture.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax those who do not understand that payed != paid

Re:The old Motto:

[Earered]

You're not concerned.
Contrary to what the summary said, it's not a tax for artist.

The problem is twofold :
- Google France declares to the french IRS 40 000 000 of revenues, while 800 000 000 coming from french companies are declared in Ireland to evade french taxes. Basically, if french money is good enough for Google to open some offices in France, they should pay taxes.
- Content providers (the like of Slashdot lemonde.fr whatever) have seen their ad revenue decrease. There is doubts on whether it comes from Google abusing it's more thant 65% market share on internet ad network.

Some info in french :
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2010/01/08/nicolas-sarkozy-souhaite-que-google-paye-plus-d-impots-en-france_1289051_651865.html#ens_id=1280818
(Though, they're wrong on the practice being legal, it's just really hard to prove and estimate for the state)

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

If I pay for something, it is only logical that I have the right to do it. This has, is, and will be the basis of our economic system for quite a while yet.

You taxes pay for prisons too, would you like some time there too?

Re:The old Motto:

[TOGSolid]

I was just coming in to ask that exact question. Damn you Slashdotters for being so on the ball. It's absolutely mind boggling that the lawmakers don't see that as a potentially huge loophole in their attempts to keep propping up a dead business model.

Re:The old Motto:

[mcgrew]

Better idea: tax creators of artistic works and use it to pay online advertisers who lose money due to fraudulent clicks.

I know your tongue is firmly in your cheek, but if they did that you'd pay a tax to post on slashdot. I mean, define art. Art historians have a hard time doing it even. I had an art history class where the instructor showed slides of what was in art galleries in the 1890s, and there was no impressionism or anything else you see in today's museums. Most of what's in today's galleries is unlikely to be in 22nd century museums. And there are all sorts of art; writing is an art form.

If they tax art, they'll have to tax all creativity.

And since Google's homepage often contains variations on its trademark celebrating various events (I particularly liked this year's homage to Newton), they'd pay a tax and get the tax right back whether the French idea or yours was implimented.

It sounds like a lose-lose propositions to me.

BTW and OT, your sig is incorrect. +5 funny gains no karma (but you'll at least get a "the comedian" in your achievements page), and some moderators have no sense of humor and will mod you troll, flamebait, or if they don't get the joke, offtopic.

Want good karma? Post interestingly, informatively, or insightfully. And be polite; an insightful but brash comment will almost always get you modded down.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not, as was demonstrated by our tax on blank CD/DVDs.

There was at least SOME relation between blank media and copying music/video, since once upon a time hard disks were very tiny, and you would put the copies on cassette tape/CD/DVD.

There is no relation between online advertising & copying music/video.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit slowing down our internet!

Re:The old Motto:

[hoggoth]

I'm curious, if you own a TV in the UK, don't subscribe to any cable network, and the UK switches to a digital on-air signal but you don't buy a converter box... then would you no longer have to pay that tax since you cannot receive any TV signals?

Re:The old Motto:

[Aklyon]

Read my sig. I've alredy said that!

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

The French government doesn't use government. It's like every bad stereotype about women, as a government.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

No don't want spend any time at the prison, but I do benefit (use) from them. The prison keeps the bad guys contianed so they don't harm me. These subsities for artist who's music I DON'T pirate so I don't want to pay for!

What I would like to know is how much of that tax money ends up in the hands of the artist it is collected for????

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you pay that tax then technically it is the pirates that owe a debt to you.

And you did get into details about the intrinsic value of pirating.

Re:The old Motto:

[cgenman]

The internet has been around for 15 years at this point. At first it was understandable the large swaths of people who just couldn't grasp how it works.

But by now everyone should at least have some sense for it, especially policy makers. At this point, it's like saying you don't understand these "horseless carriage" things, and that you should be required to feed them once a day.

Re:The old Motto:

[russotto]

Lots of pirates seem to think it's some kind of free pass for downloading whatever they like and it somehow makes it legal.

If you pay the penalty regardless, you may as well do the crime.

Re:The old Motto:

[Alinabi]

If I pay for something, it is only logical that I have the right to do it

So, if you pay someone to kill your wife, you must have the right to do it. 'Cuz you paid, right? Murder is illegal only when it is pro bono.

Re:The old Motto:

[zzyzyx]

No, the tax was to compensate for the "private copy exception" to copyright, that gives anyone the right to copy a copyrighted work for use in his "family circle". Not to compensate for piracy. Actually the board responsible for setting the amount of the tax was sued, successfully, because they accounted for piracy in their calculations. As a result, the tax has been greatly lower- err, I mean, fiddled with to get to the exact same amount without accounting for piracy.
By the way, the board is run by a majority of representatives from the recording industries. This ensures 100% objective decisions. That's how things go in France.

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

The tax on blank music CD's DID legalize the duplicating of CD's for the purpose of distributing them for non-commercial purposes. It doesn't "allow illegal things". What does that even mean? It is either illegal or not. This tax was heavily debated in Congress and you can watch the videos from c-span or read the transcript. The question presented to [the recording industry] that the debate ended on was "Will this settle the issue?", and the response was a strong affirmative "yes". For Congress, the purpose and intent was legalizing copying (for non commercial distribution). Also, it was a two way street; it was a compromise. Not going to go into it, but you may be interested in reading about something called Social Contract Theory of Law.

Things are not illegal just because you don't like something.

Re:The old Motto:

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

If it's any consolation, I'm sure none actually makes it to the artist.

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

No, the tax is only on blank music CD's. Ever notice that those cd's are a bit more expensive? The only difference is that the tax is paid to the music companies and it makes your mix tapes legal. regular CDRs do not have the tax and do not get the protection. So unless you are buying music CDs and using them for data storage, you are safe :) Of course this is not legal advice and IANAL.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

No one thinks the internet is a big scary thing anymore.

In the early days, sure, you needed to be a little tech savvy, and there was a feeling of anarchy on the web. But it's not hard to use anymore, your grandpa figured it out.

The internet was taken over years ago by corporations, the biggest being google.

Governments and corporations are just sorting out headcount and accounting issues. All this tax talk is just a departmental re-org.

Re:The old Motto:

[Demonantis]

Then there shouldn't be a cigarette tax then and everyone should be taxed for the health costs of those people. Notice how cigarettes are not illegal as well in this case. Same thing happened when they started taxing pot. The courts had to strike down the tax because it legitimized those peoples position. I for one would like an independent study on how pirating is effecting the industry and costing it money before the tax is legitimized or the tax is just legitimizing illegal activity. Even then it should not be burdened on to a single product.

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

Music CD tax legalized mix tape distribution for non commercial purposes. Of course that doesn't mean that doesn't have anything to do with downloading music online. Not going to write a thesis on copyright law, but if this is an issue you are interested in the subject and are interested in educating people I might recommend on getting your information from more than just the MPAA or RIAA. Just because someone calls something theft or illegal does not magically make it so no matter how many times they say it.

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

The tax legalized using the medium for making mix CDs and non-commercial distribution. This doesn't legalize otherwise illegal methods for acquiring that music.

Re:The old Motto:

[MBaldelli]

I have a better idea. Impose a tax on undertakers because murder causes enormous harm and economic loss to society.

I have a better idea, I say we tax stupidity. Then Legislators and common man alike will have to pay taxes for the stupidest ideas on the planet. Imagine how quick deficits would be taken care of if 2 cents a day were taxed to people making up stupid ideas like this.

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

Music companies believed they should have the right to restrict the making of mix tapes and such. That was not the law but the RIAA agreed that the tax would "settle the issue". Also, the tax is only on music CDRs, not all CDRs. That is why they are more expensive.

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

Ah, constitutional principles. I remember reading about that in some history book somewhere. Sounds like a great idea in theory. Someone should write congress and tell them about these things. It might help them.

Re:The old Motto:

[TikiTDO]

If I pay someone to kill my wife, I have a right to expect that they will kill my wife. That would obviously be illegal, but such is the way payments work.

Re:The old Motto:

[zoward]

This is exactly what I mean. You're thinking simply that because you are paying extra for subsidizing piracy, you somehow get the permission to pirate whatever. That is NOT the case.

While it's true this isn't the case in a legal sense, it's a lot harder for media companies to take the moral high ground of "copying music is stealing", when people are forced to pay a premium to them when they buy recordable media regardless of how they use it. My music collection consists at this point of music I've bought, and freely available CC-licensed MP3's ... but if I was paying a levy on my recordable media I'd lose any moral compunctions I might have regarding the copying for licensed music.

Re:The old Motto:

[Shagg]

Like with everything, you can blame the group that does bad things for your increased costs.

You mean like the RIAA who lobbied for this government sponsored revenue in the first place?

Re:The old Motto:

[brkello]

I agree with your point that if they are taxing you and that money goes to some company, that the company in turn actually owes you something.

But when you talk about the intrinsic value of a pirate, you come off as hypocritical. If a person takes from a company, then shouldn't he owe something as well? You can say he could create a sale, but you can't really prove that a pirate produces a sale or sales. It is the flip side of the same argument you are using.

Quite frankly, piracy is wrong. Taxing people for piracy is wrong as well.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

That in itself makes all the sense. After all, if a company profits from the infrastructure paid off by all tax payers then the profiting companies should also contribute to the maintenance and improvement of that infrastructure.

Moreover, if we take all the democracy/republic propaganda that has been imposed on us then the logic becomes even greater. We are ruled by masters which control our domain and which therefore demand a cut from our trade.

Re:The old Motto:

[TikiTDO]

Very good point, I agree that if a pirate takes something from a company, he does owe the company something. The balance of owing and owed indeed works both ways.

Re:The old Motto:

[Edzilla2000]

Here in France, every blank media is heavily taxed, including: CDs, DVDs, Bluerays, hard drives, USB flash drives, memory cards, even cell phones... Right now they are considering taxing printer ink, to subsidize book scanning...

Re:The old Motto:

[Russ1642]

As the home of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures France already knows the time of day.

Re:The old Motto:

[tragedy]

Is this the _Full Metal Jacket_ approach to punishment? Don't punish the offender, punish everyone around them so they'll lash out at the offender for you and deliver harsher punishment than you're allowed to? Is that what we're supposed to be doing? Putting bars of soap in a sock and beating everyone we know who copies music with it in the night?

Re:The old Motto:

[Beardo the Bearded]

Watch carefully -- they don't actually call it illegal.

"Copyright infringment is stealing." (Their opinion)

"Stealing is against the law." (Fact)

They're purposely framing the two sentences to make them seem related. It would be roughly equivalent to:

"This MPAA exec says that these are pictures of his kids in the bath."

"Child pornographers lie."

The two sentences aren't related in any way, but the framing makes it seem like they are.

Re:The old Motto:

[Drethon]

Can I please mod this up past +5?

Re:The old Motto:

[IndustrialComplex]

So, if you pay someone to kill your wife, you must have the right to do it. 'Cuz you paid, right? Murder is illegal only when it is pro bono.

If the government pays an executioner to kill the BTK serial killer, then I expect BTK to be killed.

I think the comparison is apt.

The government gave money to an entity, a service must be rendered.

Re:The old Motto:

[Yvanhoe]

I wholeheartedly agree on you, even if we are not talking about the same congress. But this was an argument concerning legalities.

Re:The old Motto:

[shutdown -p now]

Lots of pirates seem to think it's some kind of free pass for downloading whatever they like and it somehow makes it legal.

That's because it actually is legal, at least in countries with a judicial system sane enough that it can add 2+2 and get 4 - which is e.g. the case in Canada (it only applies to music, because only blank "audio" CDs are levied).

Re:The old Motto:

[blackest_k]

Admittedly it varies from region to region but 21% of what google gets paid is VAT is that not enough? tax
Then google is taxed on advertising revenue on top of this.

so why should I subsidize big corporations with my advertising budget? It also makes even less sense to tax advertisements for susan boyles cd. In order to make up for people pirating it.

And how do you even begin to determine who gets paid from this magic slush fund does simon cowel put in a claim for missing out on the christmas number one spot because not enough people bought the crap he's peddling.

nobody pirating anything pays for advertising. There might be some legitimacy to taxing a torrent sites advertising revenue since its made from the sites visitors. Good luck trying to determine what government has the tax rights thou.

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Who even uses CDs anymore?

Re:The old Motto:

[tragedy]

It's a bit more like if the government tried and convicted everyone for murder 20 years when they turned 18 just in case they someday murdered someone. They might then feel that they did, in fact, have a right to go out and kill someone. There's a concept in law called double jeopardy, where you're not supposed to be able to be tried twice for the same crime. It should be applicable to summary judgments without due process as well. I suppose you could make the argument that, since it's an illegal punishment in the first place, being an automatic summary judgment without trial or the possibility of defending yourself, that normal legal rules shouldn't apply. So let's just throw the law out the window! Punishment all around. Everyone's probably done something to deserve it!
There was actually a movie titled _Double Jeopardy_ about exactly that. A man frames his wife for murder and she goes to prison for murder. When she gets out, she discovers that he is still alive. The premise is that, since she's already been convicted of his murder, it would be double jeopardy to be tried for it if she were to actually do it. This premise is a little shaky in the real world since the justice system is far from just and tends to shrug off unjust punishment. It's probably because it was "god's will" or some other bit of religious "all's for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds" remnant that no amount of constitutional amendments and the like can scour from the system. In any case, the legal system usually has little problem with allowing prosecutors to charge a person with multiple crimes and multiple times for the same actions. There's little chance that the second murder of her husband, in another location, under different circumstances, and at another time would be considered the same crime for purposes of a double jeopardy defense. It's even pretty unlikely that she'd get time served or any time off her sentence.
However unlikely the movie is, the idea in it appeals to most people's natural sense of justice. This is why indiscriminate or incautious punishment is a bad idea. People end up resenting an authority that is obviously doing such a bad job of administering justice and end up feeling that they might as well commit offenses if they're going to be punished either way.
I don't know, maybe if the idea that the tax goes to compensate actual creators wasn't purely theoretical people wouldn't be so cynical about it. Maybe if the money were collected by the government and fairly distributed through some sort of grant program it wouldn't be so bad. As it stands, just giving the money to an oligopolistic cartel rubs people the wrong way.

Re:The old Motto:

[lena_10326]

Oh, and the word is paid. </obgrammarnazi>

<xmlnazi>You have a syntax error. Missing a start tag there.</xmlnazi>

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

> (Though, they're wrong on the practice being legal, it's just really hard to prove and estimate for the state)

Of course it is legal for a Irish company to pay taxes only in Ireland when it works with French companies: that's how the EU works. And that's how it works in general: if you're Air France and you buy a Boeing plane, Boeing will not pay French taxes on the sales, as they are located in the USA. They will pay revenue taxes in the US, however.

It's always like that.

Re:The old Motto:

[Rei]

Indeed, while that's anything but a legal argument, it's very clear how that can be perceived as a moral argument.

Come on, just tax us for the loss and then decriminialize it already. If you have trouble figuring out how to split the money, offer up (on a voluntary basis) Nielsen-style media player software add-ons for the most popular media players that report how likely a given person is to play a given work (ignoring how many times they play it, so no person has undue influence), and then distribute funds on a (preferably less-than-linear) proportional basis.

Re:The old Motto:

[Pieroxy]

Oh well, the only thing we can say (as french citizens) is that we're sorry our government is so stupid to pave wrong ways for others to follow.

On the other hand, we're not alone in this regard.

Re:The old Motto:

[Pieroxy]

Also, the tax is only on music CDRs, not all CDRs.

In France, every media is taxed: CDRs, DVDRs, SD cards, hard drives, mp3 players, phones, etc....

Re:The old Motto:

[Pieroxy]

No don't want spend any time at the prison, but I do benefit (use) from them. The prison keeps the bad guys contianed so they don't harm me. These subsities for artist who's music I DON'T pirate so I don't want to pay for!

Taxes on CDs are supposed to keep the music industry afloat. It is supposed to be a benefit for all (or most)

What I would like to know is how much of that tax money ends up in the hands of the artist it is collected for????

What makes you think any of it does?

Re:The old Motto:

[Opportunist]

So what you say is that I should move my online biz from .fr to .whateverelse?

Ok. Folks, pack the server, we're moving! DNS propagation should be done by the time we're done setting up the new servers in whateverelse.

Re:The old Motto:

[Pieroxy]

But helping the artistic community from sinking because of pirates should be a benefit for the population. The fact that it does not help them is incidental here.

Re:The old Motto:

[Pieroxy]

But by now everyone should at least have some sense for it, especially policy makers. At this point, it's like saying you don't understand these "horseless carriage" things, and that you should be required to feed them once a day.

Fear is a great motivation. You will overcome any sort of logical explanation with it in mind...

Re:The old Motto:

[Opportunist]

No. They really don't. That whole concept, especially the idea that their national laws mean jack in a medium that doesn't care about borders, is completely alien to them. I was once called into a discussion concerning a law that was passed here regarding spam and banking fraud. Essentially, the law stopped at our borders and my complaint was that this will not solve the problem since we cannot do jack against those that come from abroad. The (quite belittling, I might add) response was that they're aware of that (implied "we're not stupid, duh!") but it will at least curb the domestic infringing. I.e. no more spamming and scamming in my country. When I replied that this was never a problem since 100% of the attacks are from abroad and executed as far away as Malaysia and the Ukraine, the quite angry reply was the question why the heck we're wasting their time at all if it doesn't really affect us because the attackers are so far away and thus can't do any sensible damage here anyway.

They already fail at grasping the idea that distance and location do not matter. They also don't grasp the idea that their laws don't apply to people who break laws in their country because these people are far, far away and don't really break them "here" because the offending server (sending spam/scam mails) is "there" where it might even be legal to send such crap out. Most of all they don't grasp that it is trivial to "move" internationally on the internet, that it is trivial to be from Malaysia today, from the Ukraine tomorrow and from Vietnam next week. That companies can easily pack and go away if they don't like the law. Internet companies' assets are mostly data. They are easily moved to a new server. The old servers are not moved, they were most likely just rented anyway. Rent a batch of new ones in $other_country, move the DNS resolution and you're up and running within a few days. You have no idea how long it took me to explain that to a certain person at Interpol why his international warrant will most likely not be worth the paper it's printed on by the time he gets it. Well, he had to try it (and looked like a very big idiot when we raided an empty server farm...).

So you see, they really don't get it. They're set in their brick and mortar ways and this whole intarwebthingamajig has to follow the same rules, or we'll make it follow those rules. Sadly (or fortunately, your pick), it doesn't.

Re:The old Motto:

[Opportunist]

Since my country does the same BStery here, and I would be surprised if it was different for the UK and the BBC, here's how they reason: You're not paying for our public broadcaster (even though he gets a share of the money). You're paying for the privilege of having and operating a TV set. The money also doesn't exclusively go to the public broadcasting company, most of it is used for ... other stuff.

When you ask what other stuff that may be, you get a lot of evasive answers until you finally figure out that it pays for the administration of the fee and their staff that hunts down people who don't pay. Self sustaining system ftw!

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

I definitely agree. That's why if we imprison someone for raping a 12-year-old, then find out they didn't actually do it, we should find a little girl for them to enjoy at their release.

Yeah, I take your point, but can't you see the difference between payment and theft? Hint: payment is involved in transactions you have voluntarily entered. Taking your money and prosecuting you for subsequent "piracy" is certainly unfair, but chiefly because taking your money was unfair to start with (and, depending who you ask, also because prosecuting someone for "piracy" was unfair to start with).

Re:The old Motto:

[ultranova]

The extra tax isn't there to 'allow' you to pirate whatever. It's there because it's known it happens, and it's there to subsidize some of the value back. It is not a "you are allowed to pirate" tax.

The tax is there because some businessman realized that they could get a subsidy by bribing a lawmaker to listen to them, and then proceeded to do so.

Like with everything, you can blame the group that does bad things for your increased costs.

That group would be the copyright holders. Or at least I think that bribing lawmakers to pervert society and technological progress for the sake of your profits and the detriment of all is pretty bad.

Do you think it is the store that loses money if someone steals from them? No, the lost value will be taken from other customers in increased prices.

The shopkeeper already sets the price to whatever he thinks will bring him the most income. So do all the other businesses. I don't know why people keep parroting this rubbish when it's clearly just that.

Re:The old Motto:

[hoggoth]

Ah... sounds like tax refunds.

GOV: "We will be giving you a tax refund!"
Citizen: "Why don't you just NOT tax me that same amount instead of paying thousands of accountants and clerks who calculate, verify, administer, process, and mail my refund?"
GOV: "ummm... we are sending you money, see?"

Re:The old Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

... but simple people probably think that the tax was there to allow your illegal activities.

"Simple" people like the honorable judges of the Canadian court system, for example?

Frankly I think you should have been modded Flamebait for that one. People who don't have the same opinions about copyright law aren't necessarily "simple".

Re:The old Motto:

[toriver]

Taking implies a loss: However, there is no reduction of available goods or reduction in money when an unlicensed copy is made, in particular if it is of a digital product. A "pirate" copying for his own benefit does not deprive a company of anything except a potential income, but there is no compulsion when a product is made that there shall be a sale. The world does not owe anyone a profit.

The pirate is "leeching" off the money paid by the people buying the legal copies, though. But the industries push a myth that without economic compensation no "intellectual property" (more newspeak) would be created, despite millennia of just that occuring.

Yes, unlicensed copying is illegal, but the laws governing it are not the same applied for theft or embezzlement or the like. Equating them like the industries do in propaganda (but not in court) is wrong because it blurs the terms. And eventually people will stop taking them seriously.

Re:The old Motto:

[ultranova]

So what you say is that I should move my online biz from .fr to .whateverelse?

He's saying that if you operate in some country and take advantage of its infrastructure, both physical and social, you should also pay the taxes you owe it, rather than argue that your company is based in $TAX_SHELTER_COUNTRY, despite having nothing more than a single-room office - if even that - there. In other words, you should play honestly.

Ok. Folks, pack the server, we're moving! DNS propagation should be done by the time we're done setting up the new servers in whateverelse.

Are the folks also moving? Are you moving? Or are you going to stay in France, enjoying the benefits of French society while refusing to pay the taxes to support it with accounting tricks?

This is why businessmen are nowadays just as universally hated as politicians: most of them are slimy little toads who are trying to enrich themselves at other people's expense using whatever loopholes they can find, rather than building factories or providing services. Frankly, it's even worse than it was during the era of Robber Barons, who at least ran actual businesses.

But hey, do run crying to whatever tax shelter you wish; just remember that everyone else coming there is exactly like you, so life might not be so pleasant there after all.

Re:The old Motto:

[Opportunist]

In other words, you should play honestly.

I'd love to reply to this, but the company execs are still busy trying to catch their breath after they burst out into laughter.

Are the folks also moving? Are you moving?

"I" am an international company. "I" hired an exec and people there to run the parts that I couldn't administer remotely. "I" never was in France. HR already has people in Romania on standby, they're doing the .ro biz already and with a few more we can easily also handle the .fr biz. Detach yourself from the idea that doing business in a country has anything to do with being in that country, at least when we're talking about international corporations. It's quite possible no exec from Google has ever set foot into France, and none of them would be affected from the shift towards another country.

It's not like I enjoy that kind of practice. It's just that this is the point many politicians seem to overlook when they design laws like that. Evading them is trivial for international companies. They simply shut down here and open over there, because they don't give half a shit where they produce. The company that has to foot that bill and gets hit by it is a national company that can't simply hire&fire, shut down and open up, because the ones running the company itself are located in the country. This bill will not hit Google, Yahoo or any other global player. It will hit the French internet companies exclusively.

Re:The old Motto:

[nacturation]

BTW and OT, your sig is incorrect. +5 funny gains no karma (but you'll at least get a "the comedian" in your achievements page), and some moderators have no sense of humor and will mod you troll, flamebait, or if they don't get the joke, offtopic.

Want good karma? Post interestingly, informatively, or insightfully. And be polite; an insightful but brash comment will almost always get you modded down.

Your reading comprehension is incorrect. :) I know how to spell humorously.

Re:The old Motto:

[JustOK]

Ninjas, for one. But, you can't see them do it.

Re:The old Motto:

[MacWiz]

Yeah, I take your point, but can't you see the difference between payment and theft? Hint: payment is involved in transactions you have voluntarily entered.

I take your point, but can't you see the difference between copyright infringement and theft? Hint: If the record label and retailers don't have a single copy to sell, you can't possibly steal it. You also can't buy it and, due to the record labels' foresight and immense concern for the art of music, they can never be re-released.

So a great number of works have simply ceased to exist, long before their copyrights expired. Argue with your label too much and you could find your entire catalog suddenly missing from retail shelves. Now all the retail record stores are out of business and everyone's catalog is missing in physical form.

There is nothing to steal, although you could infringe a few copyrights without too much trouble, especially if you were trying to save something from being forgotten -- after its commercial potential for exploitation has been realized but before they set off the dynamite charges. (See http://www.billholland.net/words/vault2)

Re:The old Motto:

[Hognoxious]

Not the same at all. This tax (or levy or whatever you call) it is basically a commercial transaction, not a crime against a person.

The problem is that this commercial transaction is unlike any otherin that 1) it's involuntary and 2) it's one-sided. The assumption that if you've paid it you can make copies is simply balancing the books, in people's minds at least.

Re:The old Motto:

[Yvanhoe]

Following this reasoning, Churches could ask for subsidizes to prevent the Apocalypse from happening.

Re:The old Motto:

[Pieroxy]

Finally, FINALLY! We have the 2nd item!!!

1. Tell people the apocalypse is coming
2. Tell them you're the only one to be able to communicate with the divine, but it cost money. Ask for subsidizes for your "expenses".
3. Profit !!!

I'm off to the USPTO this minute!

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

Well whatever mommy says I am sure is in your best interest. That is the great thing about France is that nobody needs to worry their pretty little head about such things.

Re:The old Motto:

[thtrgremlin]

"Music theft can take various forms: individuals who illegally upload or download music online, online companies who build businesses based on theft and encourage users to break the law, or criminals manufacturing mass numbers of counterfeit CDs for sale on street corners, in flea markets or at retail stores."

This is their opinion of what the law should be, not what it is. My opinion is that the RIAA is giving legal advice because the RIAA frames what they say as if it were the law. They should be liable for damages to anyone that took their advice.

still not enough

[chichilalescu]

I sincerely believe that they should tax mp3 players more, because we all know people use them to listen to stolen music. And they should tax headphones more. And they should tax trains and buses and the subway, because that's where people use mp3 players. And I think the best way to handle it would be to tax all people who are not deaf, because they can hear music. Also, deaf people who can read, because some books talk about music, and you never know.

Re:still not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, in France there is already a tax on mp3 players...

Re:still not enough

[interkin3tic]

Exceptions should be made for the politicians and their supporters though, because those crazy laws don't apply to them.

Re:still not enough

[pmontra]

Everybody knows that people use web browsers to look for illegal downloads on torrent sites so let's tax browsers. Wait, there are free browsers so how about taxing links? Web sites will pay for every link clicked. Wait, some web sites are free to use (mine is one of them) so let's tax only per profit sites. Every per profit site to report clicks to the French government in 3... 2... 1...

Re:still not enough

[Arancaytar]

Don't encourage them.

Re:still not enough

[Hurricane78]

Oh, and how did one guy say: And you can put everyone in prison who has a penis. Because he has the necessary tools to commit rape.

In fact just put the road construction office and companies into jail, because murder, rape and many other bad things happened on the streets.

Or just put everyone into jail, because he has a brain... which means he has the tool to think about a crime, which means he can commit it, which means he will commit it. No? ;)

Re:still not enough

[QuantumG]

Wow, if only someone had foreseen all this http://bit.ly/uMzJr

Re:still not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

and floppy disk, and thumbdrive, and anything able at some point or another to contain music or video. It is not a legally tax but a compensation for a legal exception ( the "right" to have a personnal copy ), which prevent us from arguing that since we pay for piracy we have a right to pirate.

So the only way to have cheap blank CD in france is to get it from UK or germany. ( without declaring it of course )

Re:still not enough

[VValdo]

But c'mon, that's in France. Such a thing would never happen in the US, would it?

W

Re:still not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

mp3 player and all device for playing/recording music (hard drive,...) are already tax for piracy purpose in France...

Re:still not enough

[codeButcher]

Now you're making way too much sense for a politician.

Re:still not enough

[ubrgeek]

> Or just put everyone into jail, because he has a brain

As is apparent by this proposal, apparently not.

Re:still not enough

[RobVB]

So the only way to have cheap blank CD in france is to get it from UK or germany. ( without declaring it of course )

There's no need to declare anything.

Wikipedia:

Article 30 TFEU prohibits member states from levying any duties on goods crossing a border, both goods produced within the EU and those produced outside. Once a good has been imported into the EU from a third country and the appropriate customs duty paid, Article 29 TFEU dictates that it shall then be considered to be in free circulation between the member states.

It is perfectly legal to circumvent national taxes by buying goods in another European country. Many people in Belgium buy their electronics in Germany because the VAT is lower there.

Re:still not enough

[oliderid]

Being a Belgian, I confirm! :-) But I prefer to go to the UK nowadays...The sterling is still quite low. Well if the Eurostar works of course.

Re:still not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The important point is the blank medium "tax", isn't one but a compensation for a legal exception. The good itself isn't taxed, only the ability to use it to copy a paid medium.
Now, the subtle part is knowing whether or not arguing that you didn't use your "right" to a personnal copy on a particular medium allow you not to pay the corresponding compensation.
( As for why it isn't a right, it is to allow DVD encryption and others DRM, otherwise it would be overstepping the consumer freedom )
( From what i understand, the "right" to a personnal copy isn't well defined enough as it is. We agree that you can do that for yourself but it include a familly part too, and nobody cared to clearly define that.)

now i know i do a lot of oversimplifications and shortcuts but I loath legalese. :)

Re:still not enough

[jgostling]

Hmm... Sounds an awful lot like income tax.

Cheers!

Re:still not enough

[russotto]

Or just put everyone into jail, because he has a brain...

Ancedotal observation suggests otherwise.

Re:still not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the deaf get to enjoy the rhythmic vibrations coming from the speakers that play this said stolen music for free? Let them be taxed fairly too.

Re:still not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

LOGIC WIN

Re:still not enough

[FutureDomain]

Anecdotal observation suggests otherwise.

That's why the politicians are exempt.

Re:still not enough

[horza]

And if you'd bought your goods before 31st Dec 2009 you only had to pay 15% VAT instead of 19.6% in France. However Gordon Brown has decided the recession is over and the economy is back to tip-top shape so it is back to 17.5% in the UK.

Phillip.

Re:still not enough

[Pieroxy]

Not this week-end then!

Re:still not enough

[Opportunist]

UK is the place to be right now. If you earn your money in mainland Europe, that is.

4 years ago, when I was in the UK, London to be specific, I was horrified how expensive it is. This year it was like going to Romania. The prices didn't really change, but the exchange rate of EUR:GBP changed from 1.7:1 to about 1:1.

Next year I'm in the US, if everything works out as planned. 1:0.5 here I come!

Re:still not enough

[Opportunist]

Why? Personally I'd find it hilarious if li'l Napoleon got bitten by his own law. If anywhere, France is where it could happen. Remember Robbespiere and how he fell by the same type of punishment he meted out to his adversaries?

Re:still not enough

[Opportunist]

That happens everywhere. A story that I love to retell over and over (I'm sure I posted it here before too) revolves around my brief employment with our version of the RIAA. It was part of the package and I didn't know I would be working for them (before you stone me for working for The Evil).

One day I was approached by one of their lawyers and asked whether I know how to flash a Nintendo DS. Now, said lawyer had quite a profile for being a strong supporter of copyright and spared no chance to "educate" people in various ways how it is so very illegal to do anything but what the content providers enjoy. Being not really the prime candidate for enjoying the homebrew scene, I asked for his reason, to which I got the unceremonous reply that his daughter would want to play copied games.

Not really knowing whether he's for real I declined. Later I found out that this wasn't some sort of "test" but he genuinely wanted to have that done. Despite my information that copying content is illegal (as if he didn't know), which got me a smug grin and a "yeah, but who's gonna know, it's just my daughter".

So much for preaching water and guzzling wine.

Re:still not enough

[Opportunist]

This is a bigger problem than you may think.

Germany has this law (did it pass? I didn't bother to follow it. Yeah, very negligent of me) that outlaws "hacking tools". Now I ask you how should the IT security field get any new blood if you do that? My boss said a while ago already that there are three criteria for a good security researcher: Availability, competence and a clean criminal record. And that you can usually only get people who fulfill two of those criteria, but never all three of them.

If you outlaw what's necessary to learn, you will never get good people unless you import them.

I want a tax too

[EyyySvenne]

I want a tax on every refrigerator that is sold since i can't sell ice anymore...

Re:I want a tax too

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that would make more sense than this proposed law.

This is more like putting a tax on every car, because the refrigerator put your "horse drawn carriage delivering ice" company out of business.

(Yes, the analogy doesn't make sense. That's the point.)

Re:I want a tax too

[LordAndrewSama]

You know what to do. Form the IIAA(Ice Industry Association of America) and lobby politicians for FMIA(Fridge Millenium Icing Act) and start sending letters to everyone suspected of having fridges but not paying you, then use the money most of them pony up to avoid a court case to sue the ones that don't pony up, so that everyone sees that you mean business. don't forget ridiculous sums($50,000 for each ice cube you could fit in the defendants fridge). start displaying "FRIDGES ARE A CRIME AND WE WILL FIND YOU" signs all over shops that sell them, much like the movies.

You could also set up fake shops, giving away fridges, then when people accept the fridge, you take them to court.

Use the money you gain to open similar Associations in other countries and start the whole process again. Don't let those bastard fridgemaking communists cut into your revenue, fight back!

Then you can get your new puppets to start secret treaties with your puppets in other nations...

Re:I want a tax too

[Arancaytar]

start displaying "FRIDGES ARE A CRIME AND WE WILL FIND YOU" signs all over shops that sell them, much like the movies.

That makes MORE sense than the piracy ads at the movie theater. A better analogy would be screaming "FRIDGES ARE A CRIME AND WE WILL FIND YOU" at everyone who goes out and buys your icecubes, just in case he might ever decide to get a fridge instead.

Re:I want a tax too

[Hognoxious]

Almost worth setting up a spoof site, because it brilliantly illustrates how stupid the whole thing is.

How about this but with a snowflake instead of the cassette for a logo? And the words changed, obviously.

Re:I want a tax too

[Opportunist]

A better analogy would be screaming "FRIDGES ARE A CRIME AND WE WILL FIND YOU" at everyone who goes out and buys your icecubes

My response to that would be "Huh? What crawled up your ass and died there? Here's your ice cubes, I drink my soda warm from now on before I ever have to deal with you again!"

And behold, I did.

Which of course, at least in the ice cube maker's world, means that I have to have a fridge now, since nobody could stomach living without ice.

great idea

[cyborch]

Make companies who actually make money online pay for those companies which do not understand how to make money online...

</sarcasm>

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh but they do understand how to make money. They just bribe politicians to give it to them. It's a business model, too.

Re:great idea

[cyborch]

That is true. You missed the last word of the sentence I wrote, though...

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Although a great recurring Slashdot meme, the "just fix your business model" viewpoint is utterly and completely retarded and ignorant.

It would not be validly applied in any other circumstance. E.g. let's say that businesses using Open Source are taxed heavily to compensate for lost VAT in commercial software. Consequently, a group of Open Source developers who rely on donations to do full-time development work experience a shortfall in donations and complain about that. Comments like "Yeah, learn to live with it", "You're behind the times", "Dinosaurs do one thing: Die out", "Rethink your development model", "Just find out how to do it" etc. are meaningless.

Re:great idea

[cyborch]

Although a great recurring Slashdot meme, the "just fix your business model" viewpoint is utterly and completely retarded and ignorant.

It would not be validly applied in any other circumstance. E.g. let's say that businesses using Open Source are taxed heavily to compensate for lost VAT in commercial software. Consequently, a group of Open Source developers who rely on donations to do full-time development work experience a shortfall in donations and complain about that. Comments like "Yeah, learn to live with it", "You're behind the times", "Dinosaurs do one thing: Die out", "Rethink your development model", "Just find out how to do it" etc. are meaningless.

Even if the artists shouldn't change their business model, why is it in order to punish those who did change their business model?

This tax is going to target companies completely unrelated to artists (SaaS companies for instance). I'm pretty sure they aren't the ones pirating music. Also I'm also pretty sure that their customers (people who buy SaaS) generally don't pirate music.

Everything about this tax is misguided

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

online? .... sarcasm....? twitter??

Don't think he missed anything... Though it is mundane to see twitter and iphone together. Go go rich kids that have had things handed to them. I can't wait for twitter to follow myspace... at least myspace didn't claim to be a revolutionary way of life.

Re:great idea

[Idiomatick]

The difference is the laws. In your example the laws applied are unhealthy and supporting one group. Or hurting open source. This is bad because it doesn't support new products, new innovations, competition or cost effective spread of products. Those are pretty much the only reasons laws should be in place... to create a better market. A market that the people want.

In the music business stupidity we see the opposite happening. Laws are being created, exist or modified in ways that make the market WORSE. Copyright law for example should exist only to encourage a great variety of quality performances available to as many as possible. Currently it fails at that and is getting worse. We then rebel against it.

Is the idea that the government works for _us_ really that complicated a concept?

Re:great idea

[Andorin]

Although a great recurring Slashdot meme, the "just fix your business model" viewpoint is utterly and completely retarded and ignorant. It would not be validly applied in any other circumstance.

Good for those other circumstances. It does, however, apply with respect to Big Content. And I'm pretty sure there are a lot of non-Slashdotters that agree with the viewpoint.

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? They are bribing politicians to introduce taxes on online activities, ISPs, etc. The money they get directly comes from online activities (sueing people into indentured servitude for alleged P2P use, taxes on online activities, etc.). They leach money from successful online businesses, thus they make money online.

Re:great idea

[Rufty]

They should be careful - the banks won't like the competition.

Re:great idea

[pagaboy]

Oh but they do understand how to make money. They just marry politicians. It's a business model, too.

Corrected!

Re:great idea

[DrVxD]

Is the idea that the government works for _us_ really that complicated a concept?

It certainly seems too difficult for politicians to grasp...

Re:great idea

[I cant believe its n]

Although a great recurring Slashdot meme, the "just fix your business model" viewpoint is utterly and completely retarded and ignorant.

These kinds of problems have a way of resolving themselves. Why not forget about your market worries and instead join me on the Beagle?

Kind regards,
Charles Darwin

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not retarded. Paying people for doing something that is no longer beneficial to society is what's retarded.

Do you even know how many businesses have gone under because other technology or culture caught on? Some companies can't change their business model, and if they can't they will die. It's not fair, it's sad, but it's life. We can't hand hold old corporations forever.

Should rail workers have been given huge sacks of cash while doing nothing? It's not their fault the railroads stopped expanding. Should digital camera companies subsidize Polaroid for putting it out of business? It sucks (even more so if you are the one being laid off). It's certainly not fair, but that's life.

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out "with a computer", then you can patent it.

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they use email and online banking?

Re:great idea

[Opportunist]

Is the idea that the government works for _us_ really that complicated a concept?

Duh. How much kickback can you pay and how much can a company pay. Is it that complicated?

Re:great idea

[Opportunist]

Evolution is outdated, go with the times! We're now in Godmode.

Evolution requires the absence of a "God". Because said God could pick and choose who gets to survive arbitrarily and who does not. Before this gets modded offtopic for being an Evolution vs. creation debate, it's not. Hear me out.

The "God" in this case is us. Evolution would have killed people who have medical conditions that make them die before they can have offspring. It could be something as simple as diabetes. But we found ways to make those people survive. This could be seen as humane or as playing God. Your choice. In either way, from a purely evolutionary point of view, it is putting a burden on the rest of the "healthy" people to give the "sick" ones a chance to survive. But it's the civilized thing to do. We are no longer dependent on evolution.

When you apply the same logics to economy, the politician who installs laws that prop up failing businesses is "God". He creates artificial systems that keep a business which would fail under the "evolutionary" laws of free market alive. At the expense of all the "healthy" businesses, of course, since someone has to foot the bill.

It's like playing an economy simulation and trying hard to keep one of your failing businesses propped up for some reason. Because you like it, because it was your first, for whatever reason. But it is a constant drain of your money because all the other businesses you run have to fund it. You could use those funds to improve the businesses that do well, eventually netting you more money (and jobs, if that is part of the economy sim), but you don't. In general, it usually means that you will fail.

Let's see how our "Gods" fare in their sim. Problem is, there's no save game option.

Re:great idea

[Idiomatick]

Well I understand that end of things too. That is how it does work. I was referring to how you want it to work. If he said it is unreasonable given current political climate I'd give it to him... GP didn't understand why you'd want laws like this at all.

Re:great idea

[cyborch]

Yes. "Online."

Grandparent replied about their ability to make money, whereas I commented on their ability to make money online.

</sarcasm> is not a sentence.

I didn't write [twitter.com] - the /. software did

Finally, I am neither rich nor a kid.

Reading comprehension was never one of your strong suits, was it?

A car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, France has decided to tax car dealerships to help cover the losses insurance companies suffer as a result of car theft.

A report commissioned by the French Minister of Culture Frédéric Mitterrand urges the introduction of a tax on online advertising such as that carried by Google, which would be used to pay the creators of artistic and other works who lose out to online piracy ... The report was written by Patrick Zelnik, Guillaume Cerutti and Jacques Toubon. Zelnik is president of Impala, a network of independent record companies

Yeah, no conflict of interest there.

In their report, the authors also called on the French antitrust regulator, the Authorité de la Concurrence, to look at whether Google has a monopoly on search engine and search advertising services in France, and whether the problems faced by online publishers could in any way be related to Google's business methods.

IOW, the report explored various ways of screwing a foreign company for being too successful in a local market, having previously failed to create a successful competitor even though it had funding from the government to help it along.

Re:A car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The report was written by Patrick Zelnik, Guillaume Cerutti and Jacques Toubon. Zelnik is president of Impala, a network of independent record companies

He's also the founder of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy's - the president's wife - record label. The others appear to be part of the "club" too, based on Google results...

IOW, the report explored various ways of screwing a foreign company for being too successful in a local market, having previously failed to create a successful competitor even though it had funding from the government to help it along.

What a bunch of losers - even with help from their corrupt buddies in Govt they can't make a successful business.

Re:A car analogy.

[b1t r0t]

In related news, France has decided to tax car dealerships to help cover the losses insurance companies suffer as a result of car theft.

Your analogy is flawed. That would be the equivalent of taxing computer stores. The proposal in question is more like taxing roadside billboards because the stolen cars are driven on those roads.

Re:A car analogy.

[zzyzyx]

The report was written by Patrick Zelnik, Guillaume Cerutti and Jacques Toubon. Zelnik is president of Impala, a network of independent record companies

Yeah, no conflict of interest there.

Similarly, the report which led to the famous "3 strikes law" was written by Denis Olivennes, CEO of the "FNAC", the biggest French cultural products store chain.
In a sensible country, people would be outraged by this. In France, almost no one cares.

Re:A car analogy.

[Opportunist]

It's a bit like those people who use every cheat available in games and STILL suck at it.

Remember, France brought us HADOPI

[Andorin]

So to sum up, some of France's politicians are still devoted to retarding the growth of the Internet in the name of the dinosaurs of entertainment.

Good to know.

Music/Movie Industries

[V50]

Sometimes I think the Movie and (espeically) the Music industries won't be content until the government outright introduces a "media tax" and gives it directly to the industry, regardless of whether anyone wants to actually buy what they produce.

I've got this crazy (and probably stupid) vision in my head of the RIAA and related organisations that no longer even pretends to produce something, and yet is shoveled money by the government as a way of "protecting artists" or something. Doubt it would ever get that far, but I'm sure some people in said organisations has had a similar, more sinister vision.

Hmmm. A government agency that doesn't actually do anything, yet continues to be fed billions in tax dollars that no one wants to pay. There's a joke in there somewhere.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Andorin]

The RIAA and MPAA will be satisfied when:

-You can't sing in the shower without paying royalties
-Digital formats move to a pay-per-view or pay-per-listen model, where your TV or computer can count the number of heads in the room and charge you for each
-Your Internet connection is fully monitored by your ISP (doubling your subscriber rate, but it's to stop piracy!)
-Content restriction software becomes mandatory on every computer (this will outlaw Linux as nobody will take the time to produce a version of this software for Linux) (alternately we could just make Trusted Computing mandatory)
-All your devices will connect to an authorization server and check a whitelist of "approved" content each time you try to play a song or whatever, and will not play any file that is not explicitly authorized (has the added effect of forcing you to buy RIAA music instead of competing indie music)
-Fair use is abolished (has sort of happened in the US with the DMCA) and infringement is a criminal offense
-Copyright terms are perpetual... maybe with "minus a day" put in to technically adhere to the Constitution
-Portable storage devices such as flash drives must connect with an authorization server if you try to copy a file from them (goodbye sneakernet)
-Use of a VPN, use of encryption, and use of Tor or any similar network is illegal
-Having Freenet, a BitTorrent client, a client for any other p2p program, an IRC client, an email client or an IM client is illegal, since you can use any of them for piracy

Etc etc.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Arancaytar]

until the government outright introduces a "media tax"

Hey, funny you should mention that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[codeButcher]

Wait until I start to sing in the shower. They'll pay up to make me stop.

That, and my newly invented Bagpipes Automat, which only plays random notes to ensure that no published music (past or future) is infringed.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[backwardMechanic]

Sometimes I think the Movie and (espeically) the Music industries won't be content until the government outright introduces a "media tax"

The funny thing is we already have something like this in the UK with the TV license, used to fund the BBC. The thing is, it actually works rather well. When the BBC remember who they are, and stop trying to compete with low-grade commercial TV, they make some very good stuff - everything from News and current affairs (including a very strong web presence) through drama and comedy. And without commercials. Just so long as we give the cash to a bunch of people interested in making good media, rather than the money-grabbing lowlife who are currently destroying music and cinema, it could work well.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[sznupi]

I think there's something else going on in France, too. They are after all mighty protectionist when it comes to their, uhmm, "culture".

I suspect that piracy helps big acts much more than the small, local ones. We seem to agree here it applies to software. Heck, even MS thinks so...

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[dparnass]

Yes there are several in the US The Dept of Education which does not educate a single child. The Dept of Homeland Security wich does nothing but annoy the american people while allowing pantie bombers from africa to get on planes to Detroit. The list goes on.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

It works very well. They brought back Dr. Who, after all.

I hate American television.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is the BBC exists to make good media and good programming.

The music and movie industry exist only to make money, they don't care about the product (or the artists).

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[jollyreaper]

The funny thing is we already have something like this in the UK with the TV license, used to fund the BBC. The thing is, it actually works rather well. When the BBC remember who they are, and stop trying to compete with low-grade commercial TV, they make some very good stuff - everything from News and current affairs (including a very strong web presence) through drama and comedy. And without commercials. Just so long as we give the cash to a bunch of people interested in making good media, rather than the money-grabbing lowlife who are currently destroying music and cinema, it could work well.

I think that's a great model. The trick is to identify the people who fit the mold of corporatist executive and apparatchik and feed them feet first into a wood chipper. I think a good litmus test would be asking them what they think about this idea. If they say it's a good idea, go Fargo on 'em.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Dr_Barnowl]

Indeed.. and the value of media doesn't decrease when you share it between more people.

Setting aside the cost of the broadcasting infrastructure, imagine the content that could be had if the BBC had a USA-population sized budget instead of a UK-sized one.....

By the way - it's about $19 a month (about 5 grande latte) and we get

• All this wonderful stuff
• Commercial free
• The commercial rate on other channels is 12 min/hr on average, not 18 min/hr like in the states (because they have to compete with commercial-free)
• TV over IP on demand (and also from the commercial channels, spurred on by the Beeb)

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[russotto]

The Dept of Homeland Security wich does nothing but annoy the american people while allowing pantie bombers from africa to get on planes to Detroit.

That's INCOMPETENT pantie bombers from Africa. If he'd actually managed to take out Detroit, there would arguably have been some benefit.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[misexistentialist]

Most countries have some government supported content. These new proposals are however aimed at funneling money into only-for-profit corporations. After 90 years of consolidating power, their right to profit is virtually constitutional.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[mjwx]

Sometimes I think the Movie and (espeically) the Music industries won't be content until the government outright introduces a "media tax" and gives it directly to the industry,

Sorry but wrong.

The Movie and (especially) the Music industries won't be content until the government outright introduces a "media tax" and gives it directly to the industry and permits price fixing across the board so you have to pay tax as well as paying a hefty sum for a license (fair enough, the media cartel already price fixes).

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[mjwx]

The funny thing is we already have something like this in the UK with the TV license, used to fund the BBC.

We have a similar thing in AU, with the ABC.

This is because there is a government mandate that guarantees the ABC\BBC its funding as well as other sources such as DVD sales that contribute the to the ABC\BBC. The Broadcasting Corporation (this is what the BC stands for) has a mandate that does not require it to make a profit what so ever so ever, just to maintain that it's under budget so they can fund things like "original productions", "actual comedy" and "unbiased news services" without fear of shareholder reprisal.

A government funded, independent corporations that works, I think I've just made a libertarians head explode.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[e-scetic]

You know, I sincerely believe all of these will come to pass. I see a dark future for the internet as a whole, with people like you and I either going underground or swearing off technology altogether. There will probably be whole populations like us.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry sir, but even that won't satisfy them permanently. Every year they will demand increases to the percentage of your paycheck that is to be turned over to them to be increased, even when it starts exceeding 100%.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

The primary difference there being, as I understand it, content produced by the BBC is provided to Brits for free. You don't pay for it through your taxes, then get charged again when you want to enjoy the content you have already paid for once. I don't think anyone expects the RIAA\MPAA to follow this type of model.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

Mental note: Invest in cassette tape producing companies.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Opportunist]

The BBC has always been a shining example for the other European public stations (who play the same "pay to have a TV" game). Because we DO get the same low brow programming with ads (ok, only two ad breaks per hour, not the usual 5-6 you get with private networks) in our public channels that we love so much in private TV. With the "cultural" parts being broadcast around 2am so they don't disturb anyone...

It's sad to hear the BBC has steeped lower now as well. I really love their documentaries. Ah well. Back to History Channel, Phoenix and Alpha...

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Opportunist]

I said it before, I'll say it again, I would GLADLY pay for the BBC but I refuse to pay for our "public TV" which is barely different from any low brow private network we get for free. The prime time TV programm is nearly constantly exactly the same (same shows, same episode) as some private network.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

They still won't be satisfied. Hell, they'd have mind-reading equipment that taxed you every time you THOUGHT of a song and they'd STILL want more.

Re:Music/Movie Industries

[the_womble]

Except the BBC does not have to pay dividends, and is ultimately held accountable - they need to have enough support to stop Murdoch etc. pressuring the government into cutting the money off.

LMAO

[Rivalz]

"The report was written by Patrick Zelnik, Guillaume Cerutti and Jacques Toubon. Zelnik is president of Impala, a network of independent record companies." They didn't even bother to get a 3rd party to write this toilet paper of a report. Isn't this basically like making the average tax payer insure a business against the possible theft of an intangible object?

Re:LMAO

[foobsr]

Jacques Toubon

Also: " The Toubon Law (full name: law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French language), is a law of the French government mandating the use of the French language in official government publications, in all advertisements, in all workplaces, in commercial contracts, in some other commercial communication contexts, in all government-financed schools, and some other contexts."

CC.

Re:LMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it isn't, because downloading a copy of a file isn't "theft". :D

Re:LMAO

[khallow]

Isn't this basically like making the average tax payer insure a business against the possible theft of an intangible object?

What a good idea! I'm sure Goonswarm would have liked some real money insurance on their titans (especially if the real money insurance is anything like the in game fake money insurance, heh heh heh). And taxpayers would be supporting a worthy cause (for some definition of "worthy" that probably wouldn't be commonly held).

Re:LMAO

[Opportunist]

What 3rd party hack would put his name on the line to write BS like that? He wouldn't be taken serious as an "impartial" writer anymore if he did.

When you're truely "independent", you have to care about your rep. Because that's all you got to stay in the game.

Re:LMAO

[Opportunist]

I'm fairly sure if the real money insurance is anything like the game's, they wouldn't be happy. What's the platinum payout for a Titan? Half a billion?

Not all that awful of an idea

[abigsmurf]

Although making it primarily go to media companies is the wrong approach, taxing online ads to help fund cyber-enforcement isn't such a bad idea.

It'll make "you're funding a dodgy site!" lawsuits more difficult for one thing but the revenue could also be used to fund prosecutions against adverts that mislead consumers. Both (legal) advertisers and consumers would benefit.

Of course that isn't what the money would probably end up being spent on but meh...

Re:Not all that awful of an idea

[blanck]

>taxing online ads to help fund cyber-enforcement isn't such a bad idea.

Why is it a good idea to put the burden of supporting a failing industry on an adjacent successful one?
Even if we assume the money will pass through the bureaucracy to the artists and record companies, will it really help them improve their business model in a productive way?
I would bet that it would only embolden them to pursue further tactics against adjacent industries, until they too are no longer profitable.

Sorry for such a redundant comment but

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this for real? I really cannot believe anyone could be seriously proposing this. You cannot subsidise a business that is more susceptible to crime with a business that is less susceptible. Should car dealerships be taxed to help other retailers that are victims of shop lifting because the car dealers aren't?
This is probably the most ridiculous idea I've heard from a politician in a long while, and that is no mean feat.

So Google will support AdBlock+ ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... at least for users in France? I sincerely hope that this tax flies. The absurdity it creates will be fun to watch.

Re:So Google will support AdBlock+ ...

[delinear]

I honestly don't see how they could ever expect to implement this - I don't think they can tax foreign advertisers (impossible to enforce unless those advertisers sell directly into France in which case they could just add their media bully tax at the sales stage but then that's not a tax on advertising because a user might be buying the goods without having seen or clicked an ad) and surely if they try and tax their own advertisers it will make their homegrown goods less competitive globally or force their companies to use foreign advertising agencies to avoid the tax, which will seriously hurt the rest of their economy.

Re:So Google will support AdBlock+ ...

[sakdoctor]

How about taxing run-on sentences.

Re:So Google will support AdBlock+ ...

[edittard]

I'm not sure it technically is one since it joins the separate phrases with conjunctions, which is one of the standard fixes: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/02/

But perhaps when a sentence spans six lines one would expect slightly more than one comma.

Anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

this stupid french goverment know one thing, tax tax tax, that all they know.

Completely unrelated...

[geckipede]

My perpetual motion business is doing very badly. I propose that in order to maintain this valuable source of employment, schools, laboratories, universities and libraries are all taxed. They keep discouraging my investors...

Re:Completely unrelated...

[Goffee71]

But, my friend, the French what-will-we-tax-next office is always in motion, so I think they've beaten you to it.

Re:Completely unrelated...

[colonelquesadilla]

My perpetual motion business is doing fine. I live off the grid and regularly receive checks from Big Oil as hush money to cover up my invention.

Re:Completely unrelated...

[Opportunist]

Does not apply. The idea behind a perpetual motion machine is that it does not require an external fuel source. The department you mention is fueled by various lobbying corporations. I'm fairly sure if you manage to cut off that fuel source the machinery stops milling immediately.

Personally, I'd say it's an experiment we should undertake, just to see if it works. Even if not, I think the outcome would be quite beneficial.

Fix the original problem

[pev]

Well, that's good, but lets address the original problem - roads have been used for smuggling for many years so lets tax billboard advertisers for the losses incurred by overland smuggling. Petition your local lawmaker NOW!

The French Minister of Culture

[Anonymous Coward]

sucks dick... and charges for it.

how internet providers made their living

[Anonymous Coward]

bandwith needed to p2p movies, music, and more... selling hard disk been the same.. on one hand they sell more, top noch internet connection, at the expend of those who make movies, music, books and more.. that's the whole thing, at one point they could have promoted themselves.. MORE MOVIES, MUSIC FOR FREE in here.. to gain more customers.. they can't do it, legally, but for real, that was what they did, making more bandwidth available to new customers..
that's the reality.. the next thing to happen, is market to stabilize, when everyone will get its share, and all to make an unsaid agreement, not to try grab customers of others, and at time they will definitly go the anti-piracy way.. now when you just think.. one could make billions with a "song".. and on the other hand it is reallly difficult to make "billions" with new devices.. not to tell.. about the big media players.. promoting for years, who they wanted to promote and not what the public wanted... like.. they choosed their singer.. put money behind and sold it.. by now, with piracy, they've been forced to play nicely, and the other way around.. promote singers people choose..
much to say.. but so much hypocrisis.. i dont mind to see artist make more concert to earn a living.. because i am not sure, i want big money go for "songs".. but new devices, invention, something that changes the world instead..

Robin's Hood is back

[pleymort]

Taxing ads of Google, Yahoo! AOL ... came out from the "ZELNIK" report ordered by our dear president.... But this time I don't find the idea stupid. Today, the internet model makes creative people pay, and broadcasters earn millions... and it does not sound weird to us because we are used to. But that is really unfair. Google & co take advantage of pirate traffic, so why not taxing them a little (they are talking about 1%) to give it back to artists.

Re:Robin's Hood is back

[BiggerIsBetter]

Taxing ads of Google, Yahoo! AOL ... came out from the "ZELNIK" report ordered by our dear president's wife....

Fixed that for you. Zelnik fonded Carla Bruni's record label. Conflict of interest much?

Re:Robin's Hood is back

[Spad]

But what about the watchmakers? After all, I get loads of spam through my Google Mail account offering counterfeit designer watches for sale, so surely some of this tax should go to them. Then there are all the other designer goods; clothes, handbags, perfume - and pirated software, that needs to be accounted for as well. Not to mention the banks, they have suffered losses due to phishing sites that are often made available through paid Google adverts, so they need a cut as well...

You see where I'm going with this - piracy and the death of the creative arts may be a current hot topic, but (as much as I hate to use the phrase) it's a slippery slope if you allow the government to levy punative taxes on successful companies in order to "compensate" those who haven't found a way to stay profitable (or, in actuality, are extremely profitable, but not as profitable as they *want* to be, which is certainly the case with the big music and movie labels).

Re:Robin's Hood is back

[IBBoard]

Or how about the laws about dodgy adverts/making money from illegal business are enforced and Google et al are fined for allowing their adverts to be used on dodgy websites (giving them a little bit of slack to at least catch it first)? That way no-one is unfairly taxed (i.e. advertisers who are more picky about adverts), and the laws that already exist are actually enforced.

Re:Robin's Hood is back

[Arimus]

The death of creative arts has little to do with piracy on the whole and ALOT to do with shows like X-Factor et al and the forumlaic crap that passes itself off as music these days.

Re:Robin's Hood is back

[Anonymous Coward]

and don't forget fake peins extensions - anyone with a real penis should get a cut (of the tax that is, not the penis, or even the fake penis, or the extension).

Re:Robin's Hood is back

[Opportunist]

Conflict? What conflict? To have a conflict of interests, you have to have a second interest.

Re:Robin's Hood is back

[Anonymous Coward]

Robin Hood is nowhere to be found and thinking he is, is nothing more than wishful thinking. If you actually read the story of Robin Hood, you'll find out that the quote, "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" isn't quite accurate. Robin Hood, actually stole from a corrupt government that was overtaxing the people and gave the money back to the people who were being exploited by this government.

Profit!!!!

[benwiggy]

1. Write a few cheesy pop tunes on my own label.

2. Complain to the French Govt. that no-one is buying them -- no doubt because of all the pirates.

3. Wait for cheque.

I look forward to this as a fantastic money-making opportunity.

Re:Profit!!!!

[Opportunist]

The caveat is that you have to hop into bed with Sarkozy first.

A simpler list...

[MR.Mic]

- All of your money belongs to them.

Re:A simpler list...

[M8e]

All your money are belong to them.

Re:A simpler list...

[DrVxD]

All your money are belong to them

FTFY...

cool

[Anonymous Coward]

now I can write an really bad song and claim piracy is why I make no money and collection compensation. Time to quit my day job

Sarkozy's reichwing partei

[Nicolas MONNET]

When he's not stirring up racism to try to up their votes, he's busy gazing admiringly at China. But he's not alone. Bush's best friend, Bono (of soup-elevator music boy's band "U2" fame) has the same idea. "Great" minds "think" alike.

What you don't know is that the fucktard also wants to tax inkjet cartridges(*), because he heard books are being pirated, and he obviously thinks people print ebooks. After all, that's how he reads 'em fancy newfangled electronic males.

--
(*) I'm not kidding.

Re:Sarkozy's reichwing partei

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, that's how he reads 'em fancy newfangled electronic males.

I hope the electronic males are the penis enlargement ones, not the Russian mail-order brides :(

Re:Sarkozy's reichwing partei

[Silentknyght]

"Great" minds "think" alike.

You forgot to also put "minds" in quotes, there, too.

Re:Sarkozy's reichwing partei

[steelfood]

After all, that's how he reads 'em fancy newfangled electronic males.

He's into gay porn too?

Plus will be censored on const./EU grounds

[Nicolas MONNET]

Most of the measures they want to implement are simply unconstitutional.

Re:Plus will be censored on const./EU grounds

[Totenglocke]

Given how many times France has changed their Constitution, I wouldn't be surprised if they just wrote a new one making all of the measures legal.

Re:Plus will be censored on const./EU grounds

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm French, and let met tell you something, you are so right... Sarkozy (kind of moron) is trying to control everything not for the interest of France but for his own. Then, unfortunately, taxing online ads (and everything else) make sense... Because of this, I'm obliged to work abroad.

Nevertheless, concerning the comment above, we have changed our constitution as often as you did... almost never so please rollover to beef up your political facts and more.

Re:Plus will be censored on const./EU grounds

[Totenglocke]

Nevertheless, concerning the comment above, we have changed our constitution as often as you did... almost never so please rollover to beef up your political facts and more.

Being French, you should know a little about your own countries history. France has had 17 different Constitutions since 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France#Past_constitutions

What about those who can read music and play music

[anti-NAT]

? Those bastards should be taxed the most!

there's nothing lost

[circletimessquare]

the idea that distributors (oh, you thought this was about artists?) need to permanently derive an income because they once had an oligopoly is madness. no, they will die away, and artists will make cash directly from their fans via ancillary revenues (concerts, ads, endorsements, personalized content, etc)

recorded music will serve the same function that free radio once did in a previous era. a previous era that is dead. its dead, you do understand that, right?

furthermore, there's no law or enforcement that is needed for this reality to come into existence. it will just happen. its already happened. it will happen, in fact, no matter how many laws or how many billions the dying distributors spend on legal enforcement and padding legislators pockets to stop it from happening. idiots: laws bend to technological change, technological change does not bend to laws. study your damn history, and don't for a minute continue to believe your thousands of lawyers can defeat millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and most importantly POOR teenagers. deal with it

the world is changing. you have no ability to stop it. all that is left for you to do is understand that the old economic model is dead, and accept it. or don't, and waste you're time and money on a lost cause. morons

Not a smart move

[DaemonKnightVS]

Wonder if stuff like this will affect how google, ms, yahoo etc do business in france? Maybe they'll have less incentive to have any offices there? Any newcomers into the field would definitely would view extra taxes as a turn off from having an office in france!

National sport

[jean-guy69]

This is the same country where the president decided to suppress the advertisement on evening public TV channels. Presumably to help private TV channels to sell their advertising at a higher price.

And they created a new tax on ISP and telecom providers income in order to compensate this loss of income.

Tax creation has become a national sport under Sarkozy's regime.

The same with the law. When some news story impress the public opinion, they create very specific laws although it would be enough to applicate the existent laws. Depressing..

Im an Artist

[Anonymous Coward]

Im an artist, give me money!

Adblocking...

[SharpFang]

...will be a crime of tax evasion.

Is it for the artists?

[GreatBunzinni]

The key question is if this tax will in fact be used to help the artists or will it be yet another way for media conglomerates to suck on the government's tit while the artist itself, the creative mind responsible for creating a work of art, will continue to get the shaft and continue to be relegated as simple temporary worker, receiving nothing more than a symbolic compensation for a one-off job. This is particularly sickening due to the fact that media conglomerates, which are thriving, are using their power and influence to not only avoid compensating any artist but also to screw the entire world out of their culture and their rights to access works of art without being subjected to the whims of a totalitarian gatekeeper.

Re:Is it for the artists?

[Anonymous Coward]

The key question is if this tax will in fact be used to help the artists...

AAAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Good one.

I demand my cut

[IndustrialComplex]

Every time a significant portion of my posts is quoted, that is a slight, but non-zero infringment on my creative works.

Therefore, I demand that forum posts be included as part of the metric for determining who gets paid. This demand is every bit as cromulent as the demand to extract money from an unrelated party to pay for a supposed violation on a subset of the total creative works that are actually being infringed upon.

Abuse of taxation

[erroneus]

Every time I see taxation used in ways other than to support the common good in some way such as government services, infrastructure or the like, I have to protest. I have to protest especially when taxes collected are awarded to parties who did not earn or work for it as "compensation" for an offence that no one has been charged with. This does not define taxation as much as it describes "FINING!" In short, the entire population is being fined without due process.

What's worse, of course, is that the fines collected will not go to the parties allegedly damaged. They will, instead, go to large publishing firms... "for distribution..."

Re:want to control

[TaoPhoenix]

What if he does sorta understand? My new motto (I am too lazy to google the official name) is "Never assume naive incompetence for that which can be explained by malice *sold as* incompetence."

Sorry, not silly enough

[SmallFurryCreature]

You want a tax on X because you can't sell Y anymore.

X being anything at all, as long as it isn't in anyway related to Y.

I think it is time to liberate France once more. Any volunteers to bomb them to freedom come?

Re:Sorry, not silly enough

[Restil]

Please.... you wouldn't have to resort to anything as drastic as bombing... just have a nice sized boyscout troop march in and they'll surrender right off.

-Restil

How Dumb!

[b4upoo]

The game is a'foot! First show concern for a non-problem and then propose a solution that will create more government jobs and stuff the government with more money. Ignore the fact that musical artists as well as others often have higher sales driven by the advertising effect of pirated materials.

I'll tell you whats coming

[C_Kode]

It's coming, The French Revolution Part Duex!

Re:I'll tell you whats coming

[Opportunist]

Hmm... But Napoleon usually came after the Revolution? Something doesn't work out.

No one is "losing out"

[Anonymous Coward]

The "losing out" argument is a canard, floated by folks who believe they inherently deserve greater attention than they are getting. The answer is simple:

Fuck em.

He is a crooked politician, dont believe him...

[hesaigo999ca]

Once they said the word french prime minister, then I knew it was a scam to be able to just create more money to fill his own pockets with. France has some of the greediest mafia within its government, compared to even the US and other nations....italy being #1.
Once I read this, I knew it was a ploy to justify taxes for xxx and then just filter even more money to their own pockets.

How would you explain such a lame excuse that makes no sense....yes we will tax the ADS so that people hurt by piracy will get some money back....newsflash, there is no AD PIRACY, only movie and music, so you will tax google for the fact that there is music and movie piracy going on, really, that makes absolutely no sense at all, come up with a better one then that!

I hate these politicians that cook up lame excuses knowing full well no one will ever see that money except their own accountants.

The simple solution is ...

[Skapare]

... just don't show ads to users in France.

Re:The simple solution is ...

[Opportunist]

A much simpler solution: Shut down Google France, lay off all the people working there, redirect google.fr to google.whatever and be done with it.

And yes, Monsieur Sarkozy, that not only means you won't get any tax (of course not the crap you want now, but also no other tax Google would have paid in France), it also means you have no say anymore what results google.fr may display.

When will politicians learn that internet companies don't really care about borders? Their assets are easily moved abroad and it does not matter where their servers are housed.

Who gets the tax money?

[fabrica64]

How would they know which artist is "pirated" and how to calculate the share of the tax money for each "pirated" artist? In Italy we have such a tax on CD and DVD, and guess who gets the money? Certainly not the artists...

I support this!

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I think there should be a new organization created to do this for all "free market" economies. It should be called:

Association to Support Starving Recording Artist Products and Economy or

A.S.S.R.A.P.E.

The goal of A.S.S.R.A.P.E will be to encourage economic reforms by taxing all media outlets to provide monies to the recording industry. Of course, once the recording industry companies get that money they will fairly and evenly distribute it to the artists who need and deserve it. No need to monitor them as they are trustworthy and will be fair and impartial to ALL artists. I'm sure once A.S.S.R.A.P.E is created, the public will feel the fairness, comfort and well being provided by a good A.S.S.R.A.P.E.

Oblig. Car Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax on CD/DVDs is the same as if there was a tax on fast cars (you could violate the speed limit!).

The only difference is that a CD/DVD can be used to do many legal things whereas a fast cars purpose is to drive fast (otherwise you would buy a normal car).

Oh and, of course there should also be a tax on advertisement ( I could potentially buy the stupid stuff they're advertising, causing harm to my wallet!).

Re:Oblig. Car Analogy

[pentalive]

You may also drive a fast car slowly.

Re:Oblig. Car Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fast cars not only can reach high speeds, but they can also accelerate very quickly.

I like fast cars for the acceleration, not for the top speed -- and so do many others. It's perfectly legal to accelerate up to 45 MPH (or whatever the speed limit is) as quickly as you want (although "reckless driving" as definitely a blanket term)

Re:Oblig. Car Analogy

[TikiTDO]

The tax on fast cars would probably go to police, hospitals, courts, and other people that may be involved when fast cars are driven unsafely. This would finance enforcement, emergency response, and litigation. In other words, by paying a fast car tax, I would again benefit society, helping to prevent and resolve a potentially deadly situation.

The main contrast with the CD/DVD tax is that this tax goes to benefit a very small section of the population, offering neither me, nor anyone involved in the CD/DVD production anything in return.

Re:Oblig. Car Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you got it!
And you can also store your own data on a DVD.
That's what I am trying to say, it's ridiculous.

What I was also trying to say is that a fast car tax should be more obvious (there are less legitimate reasons to buy a fast car than to buy a CD/DVD), although the fast car tax doesn't exist!
Both taxes are completely ridicolous, and neither should exist.

Governments are just afraid of the technical progres and try to protect the industry. But the part of the industry they are protecting has had it's payoff (maybe more than they deserve) and now, as technology is advancing, they have no reason to exist, because they aren't needed anymore (I'm not talking about the artist here). IMHO, this is contra-productive.

Anyway, this is getting rather off-topic...

Re:Oblig. Car Analogy

[IndustrialComplex]

The tax on fast cars would probably go to police, hospitals, courts, and other people that may be involved when fast cars are driven unsafely. This would finance enforcement, emergency response, and litigation. In other words, by paying a fast car tax, I would again benefit society, helping to prevent and resolve a potentially deadly situation.

You just killed your own arguement. You are suggesting that because people are doing something wrong, everyone must be punished, and someone must be compensated.

Look at your post again, with only a few words changed.

The tax on internet connections would probably go to artists, and other people that may be involved when connnections are used to rip off their labor. This would finance enforcement, public awareness, provide a safety net for artists thereby encouraging them, and litigation. In other words, by paying an internet tax, I would again benefit society, helping to promote the arts and ensure their continued production.

In the end, a fast car tax is just as wrong as a piracy tax. You are punishing the whole for the actions of a few.

Re:Oblig. Car Analogy

[TikiTDO]

I did no such thing. Note the key aspect of who benefits. In one case the benificiary is all of society, in the other the beneficiary is a few people. Yes, the difference is a few words, but words mean things.

Re:Oblig. Car Analogy

[TikiTDO]

Further, if it could be guaranteed that the artists whose work is pirated receive the entire amount of the taxes, and that this would be distributed proportionally to the amount that an artist lost, then I would retract my argument. Please read and understand my full reasoning before claiming to disprove me by addressing a single point that was used to explain a complex concept.

Isn't collective punishment illegal?

[SlappyBastard]

Oh, that's right, paying taxes is a privilege.

Hang the guy

[YouDoNotWantToKnow]

Seriously, we do not need corrupt bastards like him.

Re:Hang the guy

[Opportunist]

Hanging? You barbaric monster! Especially since the French invented a very humane tool to solve that problem.

Levels of dumb

[Nerdposeur]

Besides being dumb on the cause-and-effect level, this is bound to be unfair. Which artists get a cut of the tax money? Anyone who claims they've been pirated? Whoever the culture minister likes?

The slogan should be "a stupid tax to fund croneyism."

Music/Movie Industries

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. A government agency that doesn't actually do anything, yet continues to be fed billions in tax dollars that no one wants to pay. There's a joke in there somewhere.

IRS (USA), CRA (Canada), etc.

Even more LUNATIC than normal !

[redelm]

... wasen't it a frenchman [Flaubert?] who said "The art of taxation is plucking the goose with the least amount of squawking?" So taxes should make sense if they are to be effective.

Taxing on-line ads would do nothing to impede piracy. Less than a bandwidth tax. It would be ultimately paid for by the customers of online advertisers, most a tax on online products and services. I have no doubt the French govt would like to tax these to save their bricks-and-mortar over whom they have more control. Onlines mostly won't care, raise prices or go elsewhere and it is just the French people who will pay for the [desired?] ossification.

Oh ... never mind. Another frenchman said "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake" [Napoleon 1er].

Re:Even more LUNATIC than normal !

[Opportunist]

Who's going to squawk? How many people (especially the ones voting for Sarkozy's party in the first place) would even notice it?

Re:Even more LUNATIC than normal !

[redelm]

Do not underestimate the French! The right ("Le Figaro") most certainly will complain at the illogic. It is also a more than customarily stupid tax on business which the french right support. A proper object of ridicule. They might not complain of a raw bandwidth tax.

Everyone knows advertisers pay for ads, and have to pass those costs onto their customers. When the ad is in french, just who can anyone thinks is paying?

Piracy happens for a reason.

[Descartes123]

I get tired of the focus on music and video. Piracy takes place in all industries and is something everyone else just has to deal with.

Consider any company that has invested millions of dollars in building a brand or educating the consumer on their product (let alone the R&D) and along comes someone who decides to market a knock-off. The knock-off is pirating the marketing of the original company. The MP3 is a knock-off of the original media. Sometimes the knock-off designer purse or golf club is exactly the same material and quality as the original. It's the same issue.

I have spent millions marketing products before and have had to deal with 'copy' products. No one has offered to implement a tax and reimburse me for my losses.

I hate it when it happens. I could make considerably more money if it didn't happen. In reality though the fact that it happens is actually in the consumer's best interests. If I spend lavishly on marketing, that doesn't improve the quality of the product the end user buys, it merely means more people will pay more money for the same product. The piracy factor puts a cap on the marketing dollars I spend on a product and it puts a cap on the premium I can charge. If I spend lavishly on marketing or make my profit margin too high, the piracy gets worse. The piracy forces me to cap my marketing costs and profit margin and keeps in check the end price paid by the consumer. I'm forced to provide a product of 'value' where the margins between manufactured cost and sell price aren't too high to invite pirates and that pressure actually works in the consumers best interest.

Want to end music piracy? Drop the price of a download from $0.99 to $0.25 or $0.10 even. The increase in volume will make up for the reduced margins. 50 Million sales at $0.25 is still some good revenuce for a single track. Rampant piracy is symptomatic of consumer gouging. If these forces make all other industries respect consumer value, why should the music industry be any different?

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess when you download, you download Communism.

Starving MAFIAA or starving marketer, hmmm...

[noidentity]

On the one hand, if they tax online ads, it will hurt the MAFIAA. On the other hand, if they do, it will hurt marketers. This is a tough call. Can't we just put them both into an arena and let them fight to the death?

private copying levies

[zoward]

Don't worry; Britney is unlikely to ever see a penny of it, at least in the US. Blank CD's can be sold as "music CD's" (with the levy applied) or "computer CD's" (with no levy). Since they're exactly the same media, no one buys (or for that matter sells) "music CD's", so no one collects the levy on them. Even if they did, I strongly suspect that most of the money would go to the large RIAA-backed corporations and the artists wouldn't get the money anyway, since artists only see only 0.07-0.10 USD of an iTunes song sale.

In other countries like Canada which actually have an actual CD levy, the levy can account for 90% of the price of a stack of recordable CD-R's, and IIRC they're looking at imposing a similar levy on SD cards, and possibly MP3 players. I looked online and couldn't find out what percentage of that money lands in the hands of the artists, but I suspect it's small.

European dataprotection

[sTeF]

This move might also result in google moving their servers back to the usa from europe. Causing that the european data protection laws do not apply anymore to the data on those servers.

Re:want to control

[thtrgremlin]

I think you misunderstand the original quote. There is nothing wrong with vilifying incompetence. Lets say a store over charges you. If it is EQUALLY as likely that they are just stupid and not thieves, it is most practical to treat them as stupid and take appropriate action. If there is evidence to support the theory that they are systematically ripping people off blind then that is not necessarily an equal argument for stupidity. But in either case, you can just not shop there if you don't think the problem is going to be fixed.

Not sure your revision is going to show up in fortune cookies any time soon, imo.

Re:want to control

[david_thornley]

If I had mod points today, I'd mod you (+1, Insightful). I've often found that you can get interesting ideas with the question "What would it mean if X was intentionally trying to get the effect that his/her/its/their action is causing or provoking?"

Time to update your .htaccess files...

[argent]

Deny from *.fr

No more amendments before 2012

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy already played. Amending requires two-thirds. Nowadays a significant part of right-wing reps and senators are in overt rebellion with Sarkozy (see all those "I clicked the wrong button" incidents lately). No way to get a supermajority right now.

A referendum to get more taxes validated? Good luck. A referendum on any topic would get kicked out now, on the grounds it's Sarkozy's.

His best shot is the renewal of a third of the Constitutional Council. Right now he has a few lefties and Chiraquian righties (enemies), plus Giscard d'Estaing and Chirac themselves (kind of enemies as well). Getting three buddies in would help him get less crap laws kicked (so he might hope).

Proposed Tax on the Music Industry.

[cbeaudry]

I propose a tax on the music industry.
Tax EVERYTHING they do.

The tax is for using my ears.

They use me everywhere I go. I cant escape it.
- Get into a car... they use my ears.
- Walk into a mall, they use my ears.
- At the work place, they use my ears.
- At someones house, they use my ears.
- Stop for some gas, in the gas station... they are using my ears.
- Watch tv, during ads... the music industry is using my ears.
- During a tv show, music is played... they are abusing my ears.
- Computer or console games play music... which abuses my ears.
- Embedded in websites... are songs... which abuses my ears.

For years, they have been using a vital resource and abusing it without my consent.
I never asked for them to use it, I never bought any of their content, I dont care for any of their music.
But they abuse me anyways.

So I say, we tax the music industry and pay me. If you file a formal complaint to the Departement of Musical Abuse (DOMA), then you can get your faire share also.

However, they have to cease and desist all musical playing as well as pay the tax.

Simple fix.

[sourICE]

Google should just blacklist all IPs from France.

Re:Simple fix.

[Opportunist]

Why hurt the peons who can't get rid of him?

Just block *.gouv.fr. Especially as search results.

In semi-related news: Norway

[toriver]

The largest movie distributor in Norway has decided to incinerate 650,000 DVDs instead of selling them to consumers. The reason stated was that they could only sell them for NOK 10-20 (USD 2-4) apiece, and they would take up store rack space that could be used for the more expensive releases.

Why should these price-fixing, market-dividing, creator-exploiting industries get the benefit of the law's protection - protection meant for cultural contributions but mis-applied to entertainment industry products? When they so blatantly disregard the rules for conducting business? How can they complain about unpaid downloads when they apparently do not want our money after all?

Where's my cut?

[mykos]

I had a really good idea that nobody wanted to buy. How much money would I be entitled to?