And the Bullshit Legal Concept Award goes to... Private copying levy! Congrats!

[daqq]

So, I've been reading into this thingie and its implementation in my country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
I didn't even know about it until recently, when a friend bought an HDD for a security system and I had a look at the bill. It's essentially a far reaching tax that you pay for recording devices, storage devices and related devices (specifics vary from country to country) regardless of their intended use that goes into pockets of dubious owners.

Our particular implementation includes printers, computers and lots of others, and is worded vaguely enough that, with a little effort, lawyerese thinking and being a dick, a case could probably made that a temperature data logger is a device that can be used for such purposes. Or, say, you buy a 25Q512 off farnell and you get to pay the bullshit tax, because, with vast amounts of effort, this could be used to record the tortured screeching of dying baboons, erm, current Slovakian pop music... sorry, I get them confused. Our implementation of this bullshit has a percentage of the total price, rather than a fixed value as some countries apparently do...

So in summary: 'the fuck?

/rant

[apis]

It's crazy, it's basically a private tax on storage media, goes directly into the pockets of privately owned organisation. I've made it a habit to only buy storage from the UK, but I will have to find a new seller after Brexit. According to Wikipedia only the UK, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus does not have this kind of tax in the EU. Maybe there's a seller in Ireland.

[rstofer]

You could just consider it just another tax.  In the US we have Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, Local Income Tax (some areas, not all), Property Tax, Fuel Tax, Luxury Tax, Sales Tax and a host of hidden taxes already buried into the cost of certain items.  We even have a variant of the recordable media tax but it doesn't apply to things that might be used in a computer.  It's complicated...

It's pretty easy to show that taxes in the US are about 50%, maybe more for the truly wealthy.  What's another couple of percent for audio (only) recording devices and media?

Just another tax...

[apis]

Just another tax...

The difference is that normal taxes goes to the state and the parliament (which is democratically elected) decides how to spend it. Most of the tax money goes to roads, railroads, water supplies, sewage maintenance, healthcare, schools, firefighters, police, coastguard, defence, etc. This however is a private tax that goes directly to a private organisation to do with as they see fit. It's insane that any country would agree to that if you ask me.

If you live in a dictatorship then maybe it would seem like just another tax (although, in that case the dictator would never allow it).

[ebastler]

In Germany we have had this scheme since the days of compact cassettes. (And maybe even earlier, for reel-to-reel tapes? Not sure.)

It used to be a somewhat fair deal: You pay a flat fee on your recording devices and media, and in turn you are allowed to make copies of music, movies, and documents for personal use. There were always some individual complaints, e.g. from people who bought a photocopier purely to copy their own office's invoices, but for the general audience it made some sense.

But today, with digital protection schemes in place on DVDs, BluRay and broadcasting/streaming channels, making copies (for personal use) from these sources is mostly deemed illegal anyway -- since it would entail "breaking a protection scheme". And nevertheless, fees for recording devices or media are being charged, although only a small share of available content can be legally copied. Doesn't make too much sense  to me anymore.

[soldar]

In Spain we had this for a long time and there were many protests. It turned out the Author's Association which collected it were corrupt and crooked as hell and they ended up in court accused of embezzlement. 

It was very unpopular and there was much cheating going on at all levels. I bought when I traveled out of Spain and this way avoided the tax.

Finally the law was repealed in Spain in 2011.

As far as I am concerned it is not justified and, even worse, it is stupid.

A good business opportunity for entrepreneurs to import from countries with no tax. Even though it was abolished in Spain while it was in force there were plenty of resellers who bought outside of Spain so they would not have to pay the tax. Buy 10% in Spain so you can show an invoice to the tax vultures and 90% outside of Spain. It is the same with a tax on refrigerants. With the excuse of "saving the environment" they screw the citizens. Now there are websites in France who will sell the stuff to Spain.

[tooki]

They have this in Switzerland, too. I, for one, don’t mind the trivial tax on blank media, given that in return, it is expressly legal to download content from pirate sites or copy it from friends. (It’s illegal to upload, however. The legal status of BitTorrent is... iffy, at least if you allow it to peer share.)

[daqq]

In Spain we had this for a long time and there were many protests. It turned out the Author's Association which collected it were corrupt and crooked as hell and they ended up in court accused of embezzlement. 

The local version of this organization (SOZA) is a bunch of bastards that actually went out and sent an invoice to a village because the local kids were reciting some folk music on a local event ( http://fm.rtvs.sk/rubriky/publicistika-a-temy/828/soza-verzus-detske-predstavenie )... this happened more than once. They also wanted to collect a 'tax' from site owners that linked to portals like youtube, vimeo and such.

Yeah, they are simply parasites that are allowed to exist thanks to the layers of corruption in our government and should be banned.

[tooki]

I dunno. These things really do help artists. (Disclosure: my sister is a professional singer, and does indeed get royalties both from studios and from the Swiss music copyright agency from the blank media fees. It's no fortune, since she's not really at that level of success yet, but it's helpful, and a nice reminder that it's not just a hobby.)

[james_s]

So what if it helps artists? Can I put a tax on things that utilize software? It would help me, I'm sure I could find something to spend royalties on.

[tooki]

Given how pervasive software piracy is, I’m not entirely sure that’s a bad idea...

[james_s]

Piracy will always happen, most pirates would not purchase even if they couldn't pirate. It's stupid to tax items that could potentially be used for piracy with no proof whatsoever that it's what the user intends to use them for.

[daqq]

I dunno. These things really do help artists.

Well, they might help artists and such, but it's a very broad and pointless tax. If it was just music storage and playing devices, then maybe, MAYBE, it would be borderline acceptable. But a tax that targets general purpose storage, general purpose computing, basically devices that will probably never have anything to do with illegal piracy is just silly. It assumes guilt by default on the consumer side and is not exactly transparent.

Also, I feel kinda dirty due to the fact that a part of my money that I used to buy a new FLASH drive went to finance further screeching from the local Justin Bieber equivalent.

[soldar]

Not only that. It enables private parties to impose and collect taxes and that is just wrong. If the State wants to subsidize something out of their fund that is one thing but allowing private parties to collect taxes is just wrong.

Not to mention that many times the organizations that collect and distribute are, like some NGOs, crooked as hell and a lot of the money disappears along the way into paying executives and their lifestyles.

[tooki]

I dunno. These things really do help artists.

Well, they might help artists and such, but it's a very broad and pointless tax. If it was just music storage and playing devices, then maybe, MAYBE, it would be borderline acceptable.

Originally, it was. It was on things like blank cassettes, recordable MiniDiscs and DAT tapes, etc. (And these levies are also why audio CD recorders demand "audio CD-Rs", which are nothing more than regular CD-Rs with an added flag in the ATIP to tell the recorder "I'm licensed for audio use". Countries would then charge the levy on audio CD-Rs, but not on data ones that the audio recorders would reject.)

Then the MP3 became popular, and suddenly nearly every data storage device was being used for music storage, from the hard disks in computers, to flash memory cards, to data CD-Rs.

But a tax that targets general purpose storage, general purpose computing, basically devices that will probably never have anything to do with illegal piracy is just silly. It assumes guilt by default on the consumer side and is not exactly transparent.

Well, the thing is, we all know that music piracy was (and remains) a common use for computers and our gadgets.

But remember that the point of such levies is to legally change it from "piracy" to "remunerated fair use". (These levies originated in the days of mix tapes, I believe. In USA for example, making a mix tape for yourself is legal, but making one for a friend is not, because the friend doesn't own a license to the music. In countries with a levy, it's legal to give a friend a mix tape under such fair use. You just can't sell it, beyond the cost of the blank tape.)

Anyhow, here in Switzerland for example, they originally did charge different levies depending on the data storage medium type, to account for its likelihood to hold music. At the time, MP3 players tended to be Flash based, so memory cards were levied at a higher rate than hard disks. But technological changes ended up blurring the lines, resulting in bizarro-world situations like the levy on an 8GB iPod nano (which uses Flash storage) being double what it was for a 500GB hard disk, for example, and far higher than that of a hard-disk based 80GB iPod Classic, which definitely was for music! So eventually, they just lowered the levy overall, because storage sizes were growing at a far larger pace than people's music libraries. I don't know what the levy is now to be honest, but it's not much.

Also, I feel kinda dirty due to the fact that a part of my money that I used to buy a new FLASH drive went to finance further screeching from the local Justin Bieber equivalent.

Not only the local Bieber equivalent, but the original Biebs, too!! :p


I suspect that in the long run, media levies will go the way of the dodo, as streaming subscriptions take over and people stop buying music outright.

[tooki]

Not only that. It enables private parties to impose and collect taxes and that is just wrong. If the State wants to subsidize something out of their fund that is one thing but allowing private parties to collect taxes is just wrong.

I'm not sure you can describe it that way. Media levies are imposed by law. Regardless of whether it's collected via the government or a designated "private" agent, it's the law that imposes the levy, not a private entity. In the end, it's functionally a tax. Does it make any difference at all whether it's collected via your income tax bill (in which case you might be paying even if you didn't buy any blank media), via sales tax/VAT, or via a payment to a "private" collection entity from the manufacturer, included in the wholesale price of the storage media? You're paying it either way...

Not to mention that many times the organizations that collect and distribute are, like some NGOs, crooked as hell and a lot of the money disappears along the way into paying executives and their lifestyles.

That's certainly possible. But that's an implementation failure, not a conceptual one.

[Zero999]

The UK also has its fair share of BS copyright taxes, such as the one which requires business to pay royalties, if they have the radio on, even if their premises isn't open to the public and the radio station is already paying their fair share of royalties!

All these bullshit taxes should be abolished. Piracy of films, music, software etc. is not the problem it's made out to be. Plenty of content producers are making money. If piracy really was that much of an issue, they would have all gone out of business a long time ago!

[james_s]

I'd love to see most of the existing recording industry go under and hopefully take their manufactured pop with them. Music has existed since the dawn of humanity and will continue to exist whether there's money in it or not. People will always be willing to pay for a good live performance.

[daqq]

I'd love to see most of the existing recording industry go under and hopefully take their manufactured pop with them.

I have no problem with paying for albums or music. I have about 50 albums purchased in my google play music and will purchase more. I have no problem paying for quality entertainment.

However, it's silly to be essentially paying for something that you might do, or someone else might do, when all you want is a back up drive for your data. Or, if I'm supposed to pay a potential piracy tax, make piracy legal.

[james_s]

I also have no issue paying for music, but I'd prefer to pay the artists directly and dispense with the commercial music industry. I almost exclusively buy used CDs then immediately rip them to my server. Whether that's technically legal or not I don't care, I paid for the content and will use it as I see fit.

[ebastler]

I almost exclusively buy used CDs then immediately rip them to my server. Whether that's technically legal or not I don't care, I paid for the content and will use it as I see fit.

Assuming that the previous owner of that used CD did the same, do you see the flaw in that "paying for content" system? 

[bloguetronica]

Well, that kind of situation happens in my country. I think it is an illegal tax, IMHO, akin to robbery. I've banned any kind of music in my YouTube videos, but unfortunately I still have to live with the fact that I'm forced to feed the thieves when I buy new storage.

I really wish that copyrighted music ends up being forgotten, along with the record companies, because that is what is bound to happen, anyway. I won't buy another record any time soon. Never bought one for years, in fact.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

[ebastler]

I really wish that copyrighted music ends up being forgotten

Yeah, sure, along with copyrighted books, paintings, photography etc.! If those darn artists feel the need to "express themselves", they better do it for free!!!

 

[Zero999]

I really wish that copyrighted music ends up being forgotten

Yeah, sure, along with copyrighted books, paintings, photography etc.! If those darn artists feel the need to "express themselves", they better do it for free!!!

 

Art existed before copyright, which only came about because technology allowed the easy duplication of works. Books, computer software, music, paintings, photography etc. would all continue to exist, even without copyright law. It would just be different to how it is today and no, I'm not advocating scrapping copyright.

[james_s]

I almost exclusively buy used CDs then immediately rip them to my server. Whether that's technically legal or not I don't care, I paid for the content and will use it as I see fit.

Assuming that the previous owner of that used CD did the same, do you see the flaw in that "paying for content" system? 

No. I don't sell the CD after I've ripped it, I keep it as my legal license to the content. If the previous owner broke the law by copying and then selling the disc that is not my problem.