Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France To Tax the Internet To Pay For Music

Posted by timothy on from the but-accordians-are-cheap dept.

bs0d3 writes "A new tax in France is aimed at ISPs. The new government tax on ISPs is to help pay for the CNM (Centre National de la Musique). Already in France there is a tax on TV, to pay for public access channels. It's similar to the tax in the United kingdom which pays for the BBC. This ISP tax will be the musical equivalent to that. President Sarkozy comments, 'Globalization is now, and the giants of the internet earn lot of money on the French market. Good for them, but they do not pay a penny in tax to France.' This all began after the music industry accused French ISPs of making billions of dollars on their backs. Now the music industry must also get their hands in their pockets."

44 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Recoup the lobby dollars by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like a corporation's wet dream, tax the peasants for private profits. Then they can use this money to try and convince other governments to do the same.

    --
    God spoke to me
    1. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by Gerzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aye. Though if this goes through and I were French I'd demand there be no more prosecuting bittorrents, or filesharers in France. Sharing music over the web in France logically should be free now as all French internet users have paid for it.

    2. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No kidding. People say America is a corporatist country, but even we don't do bullshit like this.

    3. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by itsme1234 · · Score: 2

      "Demand"? You and which army?
      In Germany you pay some "copyright tax" for your fax (presumably because you COULD copy books with it?) but if you DO COPY books and they catch you're still liable for that infringement.

    4. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      No kidding. People say America is a corporatist country, but even we don't do bullshit like this.

      Wait for it.

      I mean if they can get a government to agree to this even though they can't show any actual damages, we'll be doing that here soon.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by belg4mit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where do you pay an explicit "school tax?" It's usually taken out of property taxes and other general funding streams.
      Regardless, educated masses (even only semi-educated ones) are a public good, and you are paying for the benefits
      you reap or, if you wish, you are paying back the cost of your education.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    6. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's good to know that the money stolen from smokers has been successfully used to brainwash the masses. Yeah, cigarettes can cause cancer. It's been proven that soaking rats in a nicotine bath for weeks and months causes them to get cancer. But, I don't bathe in it, or wear nicotine soaked gauze patches all day, every day. Yeah, I probably have a much higher chance of getting cancer than you do. But, then, my dad died of cancer - and he never smoked in his life. Go figure, huh? But, you'll never believe that you've been brainwashed by the politically correct club.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I'm just shocked that they've done this successfully in Canada, and are now talking about it in France, but it didn't happen first in the USA, where the entertainment lobbies I thought were the strongest. Heck, our Vice President is a lackey for the MAFIAA.

    8. Re:Recoup the lobby dollars by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 2

      Smokers die younger than non-smokers. It has been shown that they cost less to the health-care system. Oh, and, I believe most smokers are suicidal. Myself included. There is just no other explanation.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. Oh good by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This means that people will not be prosecuted or punished for downloading their music at no cost, right?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Oh good by ecorona · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the music industry gets to tax us for private profits and prosecute us despite the tax. They're businesses and they will do whatever it takes to maximize profit. Right or wrong is not a variable in their equation.

    2. Re:Oh good by Cyberllama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The tax isn't to compensate the music industry for downloads, it's to compensate the french government (seriously) for taxes the music industry isn't paying.

    3. Re:Oh good by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this scheme (which has been brought up every time a similar idea has been floated in the U.S.), is that it punishes the innocent for the deeds of the non-innocent. It would be rather like taxing American citizens in order to prop up banks that fail or have been robbed.

      Oh... wait. FDIC. TARP. Right. What could I have been thinking?

    4. Re:Oh good by Gerzel · · Score: 2

      Then why isn't the French government prosecuting the music industries or companies that sell music in France? Isn't there international action they can take? Or is this a case of companies not paying and the French unable to prosecute due to international boundaries?

    5. Re:Oh good by Cley+Faye · · Score: 4, Informative

      That would be a logical step, right ? wrong.

      A small summary about how the french government think it can help funding music (and art in general):
      - put tax on blank media, check (but the money don't go to artist)
      - put tax on internet subscription to fund movie industry, check (search for COSIP tax, but still not a penny for artists)
      - put another tax, again on internet subscription, to fund the music industry, in progress (guess who won't get anything from this? artists)

      For those that don't know, the fact that we're paying taxes on blank media doesn't mean we can use them to copy our own stuff, and taxes on internet subscriptions doesn't mean anything for both subscribers, and people behind music/movies. Only some cash stream for a few very poor corporations...

  3. So downloads of music are free in France then? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all, you've paid for it via your ISP, right?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:So downloads of music are free in France then? by hey_popey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fat chance: in France there's already have a tax on HDDs, memory cards and all types of blank media to pay for our right to a "private copy" of the music people purchased, but this does not authorize them to downloadâ¦

    2. Re:So downloads of music are free in France then? by stephathome · · Score: 2

      Well sure, the internet is for music!

  4. Correction. by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is not a tax to see public channels it's a license fee to own and use a TV receiver.

    This also exists in other European countries like Sweden.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Correction. by Teun · · Score: 5, Informative
      Indeed, this is not a tax.

      Such a levy on accessing TV and radio exists in most Western European countries and it pays for the national broadcasters.
      Something that's supported by a majority of the population in the bigger countries like the UK and Germany.

      When you don't have a TV or radio you don't pay.

      But this French proposal sounds differently, you pay regardless, even when you don't listen to music over the net.
      Clearly le Président de la République is shacked up with an artist.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:Correction. by Cochonou · · Score: 2

      It's actually a bit similar...
      As long as you have a TV, you pay for the national channels, even if you do not watch them.
      As long as you have internet access, the ISP will pay to help national music production, even if you do not listen to music on the internet (or to French music at all).

    3. Re:Correction. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't speak for the specifics of each country's implementation(and, in practice, many of them probably do a bit of both, with some sort of targeted levy and some level of generic funding for the arts or culture or what have you); but there seem to be three distinct flavors:

      1. Some sort of funding out of general tax receipts, as with the National Endowment for the Arts or NPR in the US. The overall level is set by something resembling representative democracy; but there is neither the assertion nor the intention that there is any particular relationship between the stuff being taxed and the stuff being funded, the stuff being funded is just seen to be something by which the public good is served(accurately or not, I'm not hugely interested in arguing on that specific point).

      2. Some sort of funding out of a specific category of tax, as with special taxes(in addition to generic sales/VAT) on digital storage media in a number of countries. This category does assert a connection between the thing taxed and the thing funded; but it is marked by the relatively indescriminate nature of the tax: digital storage levies essentially assume that all storage media are used for piracy, for instance.

      3. Some sort of funding tied relatively closely to use of(within the limits of gauging that) the thing being funded, as with taxes on motor fuels to fund roads, or taxes on broadcast TV receivers to fund the BBC. This category also asserts a connection between the thing taxed and the thing funded but, unlike #2, makes some(usually imperfect) effort to be accurate: The BBC's fee doesn't cover monitors without TV tuners, motor fuel taxes frequently distinguish between roadway vehicles and agricultural or aviation uses, that sort of thing.

    4. Re:Correction. by migla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >That's horrifying.

      And yet, this horrific setup is what brings us the BBC and the like, you know, commercially and politically independent television. They don't have to try to appease the advertisers by appealing to the lowest common denominator, instead they can focus on making quality journalism and quality art/entertainment.

      If you have half a brain and even if you're blind, you should be able to see a clear difference if you watch one of the commercial channels and compare it to the publicly paid for channels here in Sweden. The former is bullshit crap. The latter is quality television.

      Of course, in the US you only get the commercial bullshit crap, so how would you know how much better it could be?

      Actually, HBO over there seems to produce some descent quality television. Their model is kind of similar, in that they don't program for the advertisers, but the BBC and the rest are even more free to do their art. It works beautifully. I'm sorry you've never gotten to experience it.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    5. Re:Correction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We do have National Public Radio (NPR) that has multiple fund raising drives throughout the year. Many of the politicians are trying to get rid of it. They consider it a bastion of liberalism when it is in fact likely the most balanced news source available. I'm sure they consider their piss more valuable to society.

    6. Re:Correction. by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      That's horrifying.

      And yet, this horrific setup is what brings us the BBC and the like, you know, commercially and politically independent television.

      You can't be that naive. The Beeb is pretty much the in-house press organ for the Labour Party in the UK. There is no such thing as completely independent, non-partisan, non-biased media. Everyone has an ideology. Everyone picks a side. And that's fine, as long the media outlets in question are open about their biases. That doesn't mean that they can't do good journalism. The Guardian, the American Big Three, NPR, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, The Telegraph... all have a point of view, and all can do both good and bad journalism. But someone like The Guardian is much more honest and trustworthy than someone like the BBC, because you know up front where they stand. The rank and file at the Beeb are pretty much interchangeable in political views with anyone at the Guardian... the Beeb just doesn't admit that.

      And it's easy to be "commercially independent" when the public is forced to pay your bills if they have a television, even if they just use their TV to watch DVD's and never watch your network.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    7. Re:Correction. by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      And it's easy to be "commercially independent" when the public is forced to pay your bills if they have a television, even if they just use their TV to watch DVD's and never watch your network.

      Actually, the licence is to receive television broadcasts, not to watch DVDs or even possess a TV set. So no, you don't need a licence if you only watch DVDs. Watching live internet streams of stations that are also broadcast conventionally *does* need a licence though, even if you're not using an actual TV set to do it.

    8. Re:Correction. by ConaxConax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's horrifying.

      And yet, this horrific setup is what brings us the BBC and the like, you know, commercially and politically independent television.

      You can't be that naive. The Beeb is pretty much the in-house press organ for the Labour Party in the UK.

      That's funny, people in Labour say that it works for the Conservatives. Funny how that works huh?

  5. Who can tell... by jpapon · · Score: 2
    There's absolutely no useful information in the article. How big is the tax? Who exactly are they taxing? How are they calculating the tax rate?

    I have no problem with a very small tax for having an internet connection which pays for the arts. Someone has to pay for the arts, might as well be people who consume it via the internet. In my mind I'd rather have artists getting a small stipend from the government, when the alternative is sucking at the teat of the corporations.

    --
    -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    1. Re:Who can tell... by JPLR · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no such tax at all at the moment. President Sarkozy told to the press that this kind of tax could exist in the future. This means the government has to propose a law which it hadn't, that the parliament vote for it (there are at least two turns between the two houses if every PM agrees which is highly unlikely, and otherwise many turns until an agreement is reached) and finally that the government fund the law which means the chance that such a law would be implemented in very low.

    2. Re:Who can tell... by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      And who decides which artists get that tax revenue?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Who can tell... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That depends on whether you prefer commercial crap or commercially independent art.

      Translation:

      "Commercial crap" - stuff people like enough to willingly pay for.
      "Commercially independent art" - stuff no-one likes enough to willingly pay for.

      The UK used to have a system where the government would fund movies, but only movies that weren't 'commercial'. The end result was that money was taken from people who didn't want to watch those movies to fund them and then people seemed surprised when they flopped because.... well, duh... no-one wanted to watch them.

  6. Re:French music by bman08 · · Score: 2

    Johnny Halliday stands to make a tidy penny here.

  7. Am I missing something... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Is it truly the case that ISPs and such, with all their hardware, facilities, staff, and sales in France, somehow manage to avoid paying roughly the same taxes that other businesses operating there do? Or is our favorite undersized gallic weasel just lying...

    Also, if the intertubes are being taxed to pay for the production of french culture or something, ISP subscribers can download it without legal worry, right?

    1. Re:Am I missing something... by melikamp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if the intertubes are being taxed to pay for the production of french culture or something, ISP subscribers can download it without legal worry, right?

      One should hope. While some people laugh at France's [1] conviction that art should be sponsored by the government, to me it does look like a more ethical alternative to copyright. Provided, of course, that there is no such thing as "non-commercial infringement". I would much rather pay a flat art tax and not be censored on the Internet than endure any more copyright legislation.

      [1] Russia's too. Some countries are just like that.

  8. Re:French music by Zorque · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ever heard of a little group called Daft Punk? They're only platinum sellers, so I can see how you might have missed them.

    (See also Phoenix, David Guetta, Alcest, etc.)

  9. Re:French music by xaxa · · Score: 2

    Does France have any popular musicians? Does anyone outside of France listen to them?

    Yes and yes, obviously.

    I listen to relatively unpopular music, and if it's not obvious I'm often unaware of the nationality of bands. But I have a few tracks by Daft Punk, one by Justice, an album by Vitalic, and I know they're all French. (That's relatively popular, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone heard of Die Form? They're French.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_musical_groups

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to a gig/afterparty. Bands seem to be American, British and German.

  10. You tax where the money is . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Levying taxes is like plucking a live goose for feathers: you want to get a maximum number of feathers, with the least amount of fuss. There is no point in taxing poor folks . . . they have no money. If you tax everyone directly, you end up with a lot of fussy geese on your streets, like in Greece.

    Everyone knows that the Internet is awash in gazillions of money. So tax the ISPs. The geese don't see the tax directly, but the ISP passes the costs on to them indirectly.

    Everyone likes to see a tax on other folks than themselves. They hear "Rich Internet Companies" are paying the tax, and feel that the ISPs are just paying their fair share.

    Except for a few folks on Slashdot . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  11. Re:Not part of the tax system by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    And the tax on tea in the American colonies wasn't really a tax, it was just to make sure that the East India Company kept its fair share share of the tea market.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  12. Re:Why not tax music sales? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    Given that a large fraction of traffic on the Internet is music and movie torrents, shouldn't the government be taxing the media companies to subsidise the ISPs?

  13. What? by currently_awake · · Score: 3

    Why would the french ISP's pay taxes on behalf of the music industry?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the music industry wouldn't pay a penny. They are the "freeloaders" they accuse their clients of being.

      Note: You pay the tax even if you are deaf, and never listen to music. Or if you use the Internet and don't even use speakers with your computer and never download any music. This is a corrupt democracy's view of an ideal world.

  14. Re:A serious, honest question... by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It does mean that Canadians are allowed to make personal copies of audio recordings if they want. So if you borrow a CD from the library, or from a friend, or just buy it, you are allowed to make a copy for yourself. If you bought the CD, you may then sell it. What you are not allowed to do, is make a copy for someone else. So to clarify. If you make a copy and give the copy to your friend, you are breaking the law. If your friend borrows your CD and makes a copy, that is ok.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  15. This could in principle be done right. by BlueParrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has a snowball's chance in hell of happening this way, but in principle this could be implemented well.

    You'd put a small tax on telecommunications and use it to support artists and musicians. That way you wouldn't need the copyright garbage, music and art would be financed through taxes, and it could be freely distributed across the entire world.

    Of course, in reality corruption will see it end up lining the pockets of a handful of people, the oppressive copyright laws would remain, and the government will use the funding as a means to bully "content providers" into doing their bidding.

  16. Supporting French Music Only? by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The vast majority of music isn't produced in France or in French. Even music consumed in France. The French government have a history of trying to distort this in honor of gallic pride. In 1993, the French passed a law requiring French radio stations to play at least 40% French language music even though listeners didn't want it.

    Information on this latest levy is pretty sketchy but it appears to be a tax to fund Centre National de la Musique whose goal appears to be to fund French music production.

    So the French are collecting a tax based on the assumption of music piracy - where the majority of piracy is of British or American music - and then, by the looks of things, giving it entirely to the French music industry, not to the artists and labels whose music is actually pirated by French listeners and internet users anyway. Tres Francais.