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

[Bassman59]

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.

Those two sentences are at cross purposes.

When you buy a new CD, the "artist" (I won't get into the specifics of this) gets compensated in the form of a royalty.

When you buy a used CD, the artist gets nothing.

[james_s]

So what? The artist was compensated when the original owner bought the cd. If I buy a used car the manufacture doesn't profit off that sale, are you suggesting I should have to compensate the original producer when I purchase used items?

I'd prefer to pay the artist directly and on occasion I do, but whenever available I buy used, especially when the recording industry is involved rather than an independent artist.

[bloguetronica]

I feel this discussion is getting bizarre, pretty much because copyright law got to this ridiculous and quite excessive point. Please, can anyone explain to me why should I pay a tax when I buy storage and have no intent of storing copyrighted crap music in it? Is this maritime law? Guilty until proven innocent?

I don't care about music, free or not. That is my point.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

[apis]

Exactly, I have no interest in sponsoring Bieber-wannabees and their lifestyles when I buy storage for my computers (and no, I don't use my computers to store music). Maybe these 'artists' should learn to work for a living like the rest of us. If society want to subsidise local artists they can use normal taxes and procedures for that (as most countries already do).

[soldar]

copyright law got to this ridiculous and quite excessive point.

Copyright laws are ridiculous and abusive. If you discover a cure for cancer or AIDS you get a patent for, what? Ten years? But you write a novel or song and your copyright lasts forever and a day. It is ridiculous and it is legislation forced through by big entertainment corps like Disney.

Copyright protection for creative works should not last longer than patent protection for inventions.

And a tax on recordable media "just in case" is ridiculous. So Google buys hundreds of thousands of hard disks for their servers and they have to pay this tax? It is stupid and poorly thought.

What will they do next? A tax for walking the streets of Paris because you could be looking at the Eiffel tower? You could even be storing photos of the Eiffel tower in your computer! More tax!

Recordable media already pay taxes common to other products and should not be singled out for special taxes. The tax on recordable media is unfair and stupid and needs to go. In the meanwhile people will cheat a tax they consider unfair. 

[Zero999]

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.)

What governs the benefits she receives?

Why do you think she is more worthy of benefits than anyone else? If someone writes software for a living, then perhaps they should also receive some benefits from the blank media tax?

If she depends on benefits to get by, she should get a job which pays properly. She can sing in her spare time and if she gets paid, then great, but there's no reason why artists should be propped up by taxes and benefits, which no one else gets! 

Someone bakes cakes, so they get paid for each cake they make.

Another person sings. They sing one really good song and never have to workagain, because they get paid every time it's played!

How is that really fair? Why can the singer lounge around, doing nothing whilst the baker has to keep working? It's crazy!

copyright law got to this ridiculous and quite excessive point.

Copyright laws are ridiculous and abusive. If you discover a cure for cancer or AIDS you get a patent for, what? Ten years? But you write a novel or song and your copyright lasts forever and a day. It is ridiculous and it is legislation forced through by big entertainment corps like Disney.

Copyright protection for creative works should not last longer than patent protection for inventions.

And a tax on recordable media "just in case" is ridiculous. So Google buys hundreds of thousands of hard disks for their servers and they have to pay this tax? It is stupid and poorly thought.

What will they do next? A tax for walking the streets of Paris because you could be looking at the Eiffel tower? You could even be storing photos of the Eiffel tower in your computer! More tax!

Recordable media already pay taxes common to other products and should not be singled out for special taxes. The tax on recordable media is unfair and stupid and needs to go. In the meanwhile people will cheat a tax they consider unfair. 

Yes copyright law has gone full retard. I'm all for short copyright terms. It would make perfect sense. Allowing artists greater freedom to use each other's work, without royalties would also be good and improve music. Of course I don't mean someone should be able to rip off someone else's song, without paying royalties: I'm talking about sampling of course. Sadly, I don't think anything can be done about it.

[ebastler]

Yes copyright law has gone full retard. I'm all for short copyright terms.

You mean, you can't accept that newfangled copyright revision by the 1886 Berne convention 1908 Berlin Act? 
https://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/2486-copyright-timeline

Allowing artists greater freedom to use each other's work, without royalties would also be good and improve music. Of course I don't mean someone should be able to rip off someone else's song, without paying royalties: I'm talking about sampling of course.

The "fair use" doctrine has been part of copyright law for a long time, and is meant to address just that. There have been court cases around the interpretation of "fair use" in the context of music sampling, and that jurisdiction may evolve further over time. But I don't think that a short time limit on the copyright per se is the right answer, or is required to foster the evolution of music or the arts in general.

That's also the difference to patents, in my opinion: A patent protects a technical concept, not just one specific implementation. So the term of a patent is limited to 20 years for good reasons; namely to allow others to build upon the idea after a while, once the inventor has earned back his investment into the original development.

In contrast, copyright protects only one specific "implementation" of an artistic concept. Others can build upon it right away -- e.g. you could paint and sell a picture in Pointillist style as soon as the first one had ever been displayed. There is no need to "artificially" limit the copyright term to ensure the evolution of the arts.

[Zero999]

Yes copyright law has gone full retard. I'm all for short copyright terms.

You mean, you can't accept that newfangled copyright revision by the 1886 Berne convention 1908 Berlin Act? 
https://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/2486-copyright-timeline

I knew about that and yes, it's retarded. Copyright should be 10 or 20 years and no more. That should be ample for someone to recoup the rewards for their initial investment/time spent.  It's completely ridiculous that someone just needs to make one popular song and they don't have to work again. If they can't produce anything original, then they don't deserve to get paid any more.

Allowing artists greater freedom to use each other's work, without royalties would also be good and improve music. Of course I don't mean someone should be able to rip off someone else's song, without paying royalties: I'm talking about sampling of course.

The "fair use" doctrine has been part of copyright law for a long time, and is meant to address just that. There have been court cases around the interpretation of "fair use" in the context of music sampling, and that jurisdiction may evolve further over time. But I don't think that a short time limit on the copyright per se is the right answer, or is required to foster the evolution of music or the arts in general.

In theory fair use should work, but in practise it doesn't. Look up hip-hop, sampling and you'll find that royalties have to be paid, even for the tiniest of snippets used.

[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.)

What governs the benefits she receives?

I don't know how it works, and the relevant organization's FAQ isn't working at the moment so I can't check. All I can glean from the bits that are working is that it's a complex formula.

Why do you think she is more worthy of benefits than anyone else?

Take it down a notch, man.

The reason for copyright levies like this is to cover the situations that can't be covered by accurate accounting. So for example, the royalties for an album sale or for concert or radio time is easily calculated and thus can be accounted for specifically. It'd be impossible to do this for blank media by actual end use, so statistical averages are used.

If someone writes software for a living, then perhaps they should also receive some benefits from the blank media tax?

Someone already said this above, and this was my reply:

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

If she depends on benefits to get by, she should get a job which pays properly. She can sing in her spare time and if she gets paid, then great, but there's no reason why artists should be propped up by taxes and benefits, which no one else gets! 

It's not "benefits" like welfare, it's compensation for use of their creations that haven't been compensated otherwise, like making a mix tape for a friend, since this means the friend did not pay for your song, but is getting to enjoy it.

She does have a job that pays properly. She doesn't live off royalties, far from it, and I never claimed she did. It's extremely rude for you to insinuate this so disparagingly (as if it were something like being on the dole), especially given that I accurately explained the situation in my original disclaimer. The fact is, my sister's voice is in recordings that are sold here and appear in the media, and it's fair for her to receive royalties for this. I don't think you'd be OK with your voice being used and not being compensated for it.

Besides, there is societal value in promoting the arts: we consumers of the arts get to enjoy a larger array of creative works. And we get to live in cultured societies. I, for one, do not want the arts to become something that only the independently wealthy can afford to do. (As is already happening in some disciplines, like journalism.) You cannot be a professional musician "in your spare time".

Someone bakes cakes, so they get paid for each cake they make.

Yes. And the whole point of copyright levies is to compensate for what would otherwise be theft. Or do you actually think that musicians should only ever be paid once? (As in, the studio pays them a lump sum for the song and that's all they'll ever get for it, no matter how many millions of records the studio may sell, and how much they make by licensing it?)

Another person sings. They sing one really good song and never have to work again, because they get paid every time it's played!

How is that really fair?

So is it "fair" for artists to have to tolerate their product being used by people who didn't pay for it?

Yes, there's logic in "but I am not using THIS blank CD for music, why should I pay for that??", but at some point one has to strike a balance between absolute fairness and practicality.

Why can the singer lounge around, doing nothing whilst the baker has to keep working? It's crazy!

The vast majority of musicians aren't "lounging around". Most -- even published ones -- make very little in royalties. (Even among famous musicians, there's little money in royalties. Professional musicians' real income comes almost entirely from live performances.) NOBODY can get rich by recording a one-hit wonder and then sitting on their ass. The copyright belongs to the record company, and your share is dictated by your record contract. And those stipulate obligations like performing at events, doing interviews, etc. If you don't do those things, you get nothing.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you probably think the artists' royalties on a recording are far larger than they actually are. (For instance, even a big name artist would be lucky to get 60¢ from the sale of an entire $15 album. And they've gotta divide this up among all the band members, the songwriters, producers, any musicians hired, etc. The royalties for radio play and streaming are minuscule.)



Anyhow, I'm actually probably not as big a proponent of copyright levies as it sounds, I'm just trying to provide a sensible counterpoint to the rabidly opposed opinions on this thread, which IMHO are a bit simple-minded. For example, I couldn't agree more about needing to reduce the length of copyrights. (Indeed, much of intellectual property law needs to be revamped, especially patents.)

[ebastler]

It's completely ridiculous that someone just needs to make one popular song and they don't have to work again.

I sense some envy here... "Money for nothing, and the chicks for free!" 

tooki has made a good effort just above to give you a more realistic idea of the life of the average musician or artist. I have nothing to add to his description.

[Richard Crowley]

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

Quite the contrary.  It is a very convenient excuse for piracy:  "Oh, it's okay to make this illegal copy. The media tax pays the royalty."

One of the problems with all kinds of socialisim (even this very modest and peripheral kind) is that it is administered by corruptible humans.  History is replete with examples of the concept going horribly wrong.

Back a few years ago there was a thriving underground practice of modifying video equipment sold in Europe. Because silly laws put an extra cost/tax on "recording devices".  So the products destined to be sold in Europe simply disabled the recording function   

[tooki]

Well, people are pirating anyway. But yes, I’m actually inclined to agree with you. I remember the (in)famous story of a daycare center or preschool in Israel that was getting tired of parents picking up children late. So they started imposing a fine (something like $25) for late pickups. Instead of reducing it, more parents picked up their kids late, because what had been a rule violation before was now essentially a service to be paid for. By giving it a price, parents could choose whether it was worth it to them, and had a clean conscience.

P.S. I said I’m “not entirely sure” it’s a bad idea — and I’m not. I’m merely mostly sure that it’s a bad idea!

[soldar]

The reason for copyright levies like this is to cover the situations that can't be covered by accurate accounting.

Bad reason. Indefensible reason.

First of all, it goes against basic principles of our western values: you do not punish one person for what others might have done and you do not punish anyone because you suspect they might do something wrong in the future.

Again: if the state wants to subsidize "artists" they can do it out of the general fund.

If I put a dumpster in front of my house some people might dump garbage in it. Would you agree for me to make everybody who walks down my street pay me a tax to subsidize my dumpster?

Some women get raped and the rapist is never caught. Would you agree that all men pay a "rapist tax" to compensate the victims?

How about to compensate the victims of burglaries?

Why are artists more deserving than the rest of the population?

The fact is, my sister's voice is in recordings that are sold here and appear in the media, and it's fair for her to receive royalties for this.

If she's in "the media" then the media can pay the royalties. Why are they not paying? And, more importantly, why should I pay?

Besides, there is societal value in promoting the arts

There is societal value in many things and they are paid out of the general taxes and funds. Why should "artists" get this special treatment?

So is it "fair" for artists to have to tolerate their product being used by people who didn't pay for it?

Do you pay the architect every time you walk into a building? 

Artists have strong lobbies and have convinced too many people that what they produce is somehow special and needs special treatment. I value much more the work of scientists who are working on finding cures for cancer, Aids and other serious diseases and yet their patents offer much less protection to their work.

Out of principle I never paid the tax while it was in force in Spain. And the "cultural lobby" gained my disgust when it was shown they were just a corrupt mafia.

[bloguetronica]

In theory fair use should work, but in practise it doesn't. Look up hip-hop, sampling and you'll find that royalties have to be paid, even for the tiniest of snippets used.

Yup, you hit the nail on the head there. Conversely, those same "artists" (no they are not, by the way), have no issues on using snippets from Incompetech and others that publish their works under CC, and they don't even make a tiny mention to those creators, let alone respect the terms of the original CC license.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

[jaromir]

Just FYI - even some (a lot of?) artists do not like copyright laws and associated law BS.
One of my favorite youtubers, composer Dave Bruce released this video few days ago

[apis]

The fact is, my sister's voice is in recordings that are sold here and appear in the media, and it's fair for her to receive royalties for this. I don't think you'd be OK with your voice being used and not being compensated for it.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. It is not a right to make a living from whatever you want to do, whether it's being an YouTuber, singer, actor or football pro or something else. Copyright laws have been artificially created by the state so that writers have a mechanism from which they could generate an income by writing books.(Actually, "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.") There is nothing natural or fair about it, it's just a way for the state to stimulate production of books and musical works, etc.

Someone bakes cakes, so they get paid for each cake they make.

Yes. And the whole point of copyright levies is to compensate for what would otherwise be theft. Or do you actually think that musicians should only ever be paid once? (As in, the studio pays them a lump sum for the song and that's all they'll ever get for it, no matter how many millions of records the studio may sell, and how much they make by licensing it?)

Copying something is not the same thing as stealing . Being paid once for work performed is how life works for the wast majority of people, you do the work and you get paid once in proportion to the time you spent doing it, and then you don't care if the fruits of your labour is given away for free and used by millions or by no one.

Another person sings. They sing one really good song and never have to work again, because they get paid every time it's played!

How is that really fair?

So is it "fair" for artists to have to tolerate their product being used by people who didn't pay for it?

Yes, there's logic in "but I am not using THIS blank CD for music, why should I pay for that??", but at some point one has to strike a balance between absolute fairness and practicality.

No one forces anyone to sing, they can sing or not sing, it's up to them. Other people recording audio and playing it (without paying royalties to whoever happened to generate the noise) is perfectly fair and natural. As I explained above, the only reason we have laws that says you have to pay royalties for copies is to artificially stimulate the production of music. Having to pay tax for computer parts that goes directly to the music industry is completely unfair however, it's basically a geek tax, taking money from geeks and giving it to the music industry. Yes, I know where it came from and I understand the original reasoning behind it but it makes absolutely no sense to apply this to computer storage in general today.

Why can the singer lounge around, doing nothing whilst the baker has to keep working? It's crazy!

The vast majority of musicians aren't "lounging around". Most -- even published ones -- make very little in royalties. (Even among famous musicians, there's little money in royalties. Professional musicians' real income comes almost entirely from live performances.) NOBODY can get rich by recording a one-hit wonder and then sitting on their ass. The copyright belongs to the record company, and your share is dictated by your record contract. And those stipulate obligations like performing at events, doing interviews, etc. If you don't do those things, you get nothing.

So why bother with copyright and all the problems it creates if artist make their bread and butter by live performances anyway?

[soldar]

In Spain the "Author's Society" which administered the funds became a corrupt racket and many musicians were vocally against it until the tax was finally abolished.

[ebastler]

Fairness has nothing to do with it. It is not a right to make a living from whatever you want to do, whether it's being an YouTuber, singer, actor or football pro or something else. Copyright laws have been artificially created by the state so that writers have a mechanism from which they could generate an income by writing books.(Actually, "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.") There is nothing natural or fair about it, it's just a way for the state to stimulate production of books and musical works, etc.

I am frankly baffeled by the disdain many posters show for copyright.

Let's look at an example which actually has electronics relevance: "The Art of Electronics" by Paul Horowitz and Winfried Hill is an electronics book held in very high regard by many here. The authors have worked on the most recent edition (on and off) for two decades. Yet, they are now faced with pirated copies of their book, from which only some sleazy printers make money, while the authors see nothing for their efforts.

Without the protection through copyright, such copies would be the norm, for the Art of Electronics and any other popular work. A publisher who actually works with an author or artist to create something new would just have extra cost; while publishers of pirate copies enjoy a respectable business with no financial outlay, no risk (let's wait and copy the successful works only), and great margins. Why would anyone be motivated to create or finance an original new work?

Being paid once for work performed is how life works for the wast majority of people, you do the work and you get paid once in proportion to the time you spent doing it, and then you don't care if the fruits of your labour is given away for free and used by millions or by no one.

Pray tell, in your world, who would be the person to "pay the composer once" for composing a song, or "pay the author once" for writing a book? And how would that person recoup that money? Are we going back to a world where composers are sponsored by a royal highness or a Russian oligarch?

[soldar]

While many of us believe copyright durations are excessive the object of this thread is the abusive "pirating tax" which is not justified even by present copyright laws.

[Zero999]

It's completely ridiculous that someone just needs to make one popular song and they don't have to work again.

I sense some envy here... "Money for nothing, and the chicks for free!" 

tooki has made a good effort just above to give you a more realistic idea of the life of the average musician or artist. I have nothing to add to his description.

No, I already have more than enough money. My job pays well enough. I just think people should be paid for what they make.

She does have a job that pays properly. She doesn't live off royalties, far from it, and I never claimed she did. It's extremely rude for you to insinuate this so disparagingly (as if it were something like being on the dole), especially given that I accurately explained the situation in my original disclaimer. The fact is, my sister's voice is in recordings that are sold here and appear in the media, and it's fair for her to receive royalties for this. I don't think you'd be OK with your voice being used and not being compensated for it.

Besides, there is societal value in promoting the arts: we consumers of the arts get to enjoy a larger array of creative works. And we get to live in cultured societies. I, for one, do not want the arts to become something that only the independently wealthy can afford to do. (As is already happening in some disciplines, like journalism.) You cannot be a professional musician "in your spare time".

But it is a benefit, paid for by taxation. You may disagree with me thinking she is undeserving, but it doesn't change the fact that she is drawing benefits. I don't see why one profession should deserve benefits any more than another. I think the blank media tax would be better spent on education: perhaps the music and computing are the most appropriate subjects here. I'm sure more people would be happy with the tax if it want to a "good cause" rather than mostly to the record companies and a little to the artists.

And I would be fine with my voice being used, without being paid per play. Pay me fairly for the recording, at a decent hourly rate, then nothing afterwards, irrespective of how many times it's copied, played etc. That's what happens when I design something at work and they get it manufactured and I'm happy with such an arrangement.

Or do you actually think that musicians should only ever be paid once? (As in, the studio pays them a lump sum for the song and that's all they'll ever get for it, no matter how many millions of records the studio may sell, and how much they make by licensing it?)

A perfectly valid argument could be made for that. They could only get paid for actually performing, don't receive any royalties form CDs, just gigs. The better their song is, the more it will be played and publicised, the more people will want to see it live. I do admit I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here since this won't work for all types of music i.e. electronic music.

I am frankly baffeled by the disdain many posters show for copyright.

Let's look at an example which actually has electronics relevance: "The Art of Electronics" by Paul Horowitz and Winfried Hill is an electronics book held in very high regard by many here. The authors have worked on the most recent edition (on and off) for two decades. Yet, they are now faced with pirated copies of their book, from which only some sleazy printers make money, while the authors see nothing for their efforts.

Without the protection through copyright, such copies would be the norm, for the Art of Electronics and any other popular work. A publisher who actually works with an author or artist to create something new would just have extra cost; while publishers of pirate copies enjoy a respectable business with no financial outlay, no risk (let's wait and copy the successful works only), and great margins. Why would anyone be motivated to create or finance an original new work?

Pray tell, in your world, who would be the person to "pay the composer once" for composing a song, or "pay the author once" for writing a book? And how would that person recoup that money? Are we going back to a world where composers are sponsored by a royal highness or a Russian oligarch?

It's true, copyright only started, because of the printing press.

Before then, people did write books and got paid for it. The author would write it once, get paid and a scribe would copy it and get paid per copy. Piracy didn't really exist, because it was so expensive to copy a book, one might as well buy the real thing.

People only pirate the Art of Electronics, because it's a popular book, arguably long after the publishing company and authors have recouped their investments. Piracy is proportional to the popularity of a work and as long as enough people buy it, isn't really that bigger deal.

There are plenty of perfectly valid agreements against copyright law but, on balance, copyright is a good thing, but Like many laws it's become too big and oppressive and needs scaling back, for the good of creators, as well as consumers. An author should be able to write a book, get paid royalties, for every copy sold, for a reasonable, limited length fo time for them and the publisher to recoup their investments, before their work becomes public domain. In order for them to get more money they need to write a new book, which has changed significantly enough from the original and receive royalties from that.

[apis]

Why would anyone be motivated to create or finance an original new work?

That is the right line of though. Should society create extra incentives to motivate people to create new original artistic works, and if so, what is the best way of doing it? Not "lets tax everything and give it to the music industry because they are such great people and shouldn't have to work like everyone else".

Would Horowitz and Hill have written their excellent book if they were paid by the hour instead of hoping they would hit the jackpot by producing a best seller? (I don't know if it applies in this case but a lot of course literature is forced onto students by their teachers who often also wrote the book, so maybe it would make more sense for the university to pay the teacher to write it.)

Publishers doesn't add any value anymore, they are just holding back progress by preventing things like mp3s, streaming services and e-books and by introducing DRM, suing children and lobbying for stupid laws like the new article 13 in the EU or private copying levy. It used to take a lot of manual labour to produce a copy of a book and distributing it, but that is no longer the case (here I refer to the physical artefact, not the information in it). You had to pay a lot for each copy of a book because there were a high marginal cost associated with it. The author could then make a deal with the publisher who produced the books which gave that publisher a monopoly. Today the publishers are mainly dead weight. Information can be copied and distributed for free* across the globe by anyone thanks to the Internet. It's the authors doing > 99% of the work, yet they typically only get a few percent of the revenues. I believe it's the same for music artists.

* Not exactly free since we pay the internet service provider for the privilege.

Being paid once for work performed is how life works for the wast majority of people, you do the work and you get paid once in proportion to the time you spent doing it, and then you don't care if the fruits of your labour is given away for free and used by millions or by no one.

Pray tell, in your world, who would be the person to "pay the composer once" for composing a song, or "pay the author once" for writing a book? And how would that person recoup that money? Are we going back to a world where composers are sponsored by a royal highness or a Russian oligarch?

There are numerous ways you could stimulate production of artistic works, I don't want to limit the discussion to a specific one and it would make the thread go off topic. But to take an example, as tooki said: "Even among famous musicians, there's little money in royalties. Professional musicians' real income comes almost entirely from live performances."

Are we going back to a world where composers are sponsored by a royal highness or a Russian oligarch?

Actually, a lot of composers are (directly or indirectly) publicly financed by the state even today. The big commercial money is in things like Bieber soft-porn targeted at tweens. And if the tweens want that, fine, but I don't want to finance it when I buy my computer parts, nor do I want stupid laws that ruin the internet just so Bieber can make a few extra billions. If Bieber can't make a living by 'performing' without ruining the internet then he can do something else.

[tooki]

I'm not going to restate my positions any more, since this is a hornet's nest of stubbornness. I don't think any of you arte even remotely interested in taking a balanced look at things.

The fact is, my sister's voice is in recordings that are sold here and appear in the media, and it's fair for her to receive royalties for this.

If she's in "the media" then the media can pay the royalties. Why are they not paying? And, more importantly, why should I pay?

They are paying. (It's the hard-to-quantify royalties that the levies cover.) I only reiterated that it's fair to be paid royalties because of the general tone here, that artists essentially don't deserve to be paid at all. ("Do it as a hobby" means this...)

[Zero999]

The vast majority of musicians aren't "lounging around". Most -- even published ones -- make very little in royalties. (Even among famous musicians, there's little money in royalties. Professional musicians' real income comes almost entirely from live performances.) NOBODY can get rich by recording a one-hit wonder and then sitting on their ass. The copyright belongs to the record company, and your share is dictated by your record contract. And those stipulate obligations like performing at events, doing interviews, etc. If you don't do those things, you get nothing.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you probably think the artists' royalties on a recording are far larger than they actually are. (For instance, even a big name artist would be lucky to get 60¢ from the sale of an entire $15 album. And they've gotta divide this up among all the band members, the songwriters, producers, any musicians hired, etc. The royalties for radio play and streaming are minuscule.)

Anyhow, I'm actually probably not as big a proponent of copyright levies as it sounds, I'm just trying to provide a sensible counterpoint to the rabidly opposed opinions on this thread, which IMHO are a bit simple-minded. For example, I couldn't agree more about needing to reduce the length of copyrights. (Indeed, much of intellectual property law needs to be revamped, especially patents.)

I apologise for not getting to the end of your post. No doubt you're right: artists don't get much per play/album sale. It's the record companies who receive most of the money, which is why many are against so strict copyright laws.

And I don't think anyone has said, artists don't deserve to get paid at all. Like everyone, they deserve a fair hourly rate for what they do, like every other profession.

[soldar]

I'm not going to restate my positions any more, since this is a hornet's nest of stubbornness. I don't think any of you arte even remotely interested in taking a balanced look at things.

The fact is, my sister's voice is in recordings that are sold here and appear in the media, and it's fair for her to receive royalties for this.

If she's in "the media" then the media can pay the royalties. Why are they not paying? And, more importantly, why should I pay?

They are paying. (It's the hard-to-quantify royalties that the levies cover.) I only reiterated that it's fair to be paid royalties because of the general tone here, that artists essentially don't deserve to be paid at all. ("Do it as a hobby" means this...)

You are moving the goalposts all over the place.  This thread is about "private copying levies" and you said

The reason for copyright levies like this is to cover the situations that can't be covered by accurate accounting. So for example, the royalties for an album sale or for concert or radio time is easily calculated and thus can be accounted for specifically. It'd be impossible to do this for blank media by actual end use, so statistical averages are used.

It's not "benefits" like welfare, it's compensation for use of their creations that haven't been compensated otherwise, like making a mix tape for a friend, since this means the friend did not pay for your song, but is getting to enjoy it.

Private taxes are never justified and much less to pay for so-called, self-styled "artists". The artist I want to subsidize is the artist who can find the cure for cancer, or AIDS, or homelessness, or war, or tooth decay or ... And all those, if they get anything, it comes out of the general budget and not out of some bullshit private levy administered by a legal mafia.

[stj]

the music/film industry should be destroyed, it's nothing but a mix of conmen stealing money and satanists pushing messages.

i remember a couple of years ago a famous singer got a new accountant,
who after looking through the paperwork found that she was having 30% of sales earnings "deducted for breakage".
this goes back to the days of brittle records that cracked in the sleeves if miss-handled.
the scamming bastards had kept claiming right through vinyl and into CD sales thinking it wouldnt be noticed!!!!