Media Storage Taxes

Media Storage Taxes

Would you put up with them or fight for them to be removed?

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1174

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/27/netherlands_ipod_tax/

Being called the "iPod Tax" the Netherlands are proposing a tax on all MP3 players up to 2.50 euro/gig. The money goes to artist/labels that are losing money to illegal downloading. That adds 120Euro to the 60gig iPod Photo. In a few years the tax on such items will outweigh the price on the device.

I am not defending downloading, I just think it is silly to put such a tax on an item just because it could be used to use something that was illegally obtained. If anything the tax would make me want to download more, get my money's worth. I don't see this going over well.
 

Ev_

Diabloii.Net Member
"In unrelated news, sales of mp3 players in the Netherlands dropped 100% today."

This is the most poorly thought out law I've seen in a while. What about all those people who paid for their music? Now they have to pay for it again?
 
Ev_ said:
"In unrelated news, sales of mp3 players in the Netherlands dropped 100% today."

This is the most poorly thought out law I've seen in a while. What about all those people who paid for their music? Now they have to pay for it again?
Exactly, if you legally own music you are paying twice for something you aren't a part of. I am unsure on how they should stop illegal downloading, but this is certainly not the way to do it.
 
Well, to be accurate, they'd have to tax cars based on their gas capacity because some people steal gas. But yeah, still a dumb idea.

How would they even determine how much an artist gets or what artists are eligible to benefit from this tax? It sounds extremely hair-brained even if the double-taxing were sound to begin with.
 
IDupedInMyPants said:
Well, to be accurate, they'd have to tax cars based on their gas capacity because some people steal gas. But yeah, still a dumb idea.

How would they even determine how much an artist gets or what artists are eligible to benefit from this tax? It sounds extremely hair-brained even if the double-taxing were sound to begin with.

The only way for it to be fair would be monitoring the p2p networks and giving a set amount for every song downloaded, but it would be easier to just start busting people.
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
IDupedInMyPants said:
Well, to be accurate, they'd have to tax cars based on their gas capacity because some people steal gas. But yeah, still a dumb idea.

How would they even determine how much an artist gets or what artists are eligible to benefit from this tax? It sounds extremely hair-brained even if the double-taxing were sound to begin with.
I was thinking about stolen cars, but not stolen gas. Although with these prices...
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
They already charge a levy on blank CDs in Canada. But as a result, we're less inclined to support further methods of impeding downloads.
 
Steel_Avatar said:
They already charge a levy on blank CDs in Canada. But as a result, we're less inclined to support further methods of impeding downloads.
That's a good point. If music industries are going to insist on the downloading as a crime approach, then moves like this essentially serve only to institutionalize that crime. People are going to start thinking "Well, I specifically paid for the right to do this..."

I think they should ditch the lawsuits and look at what a promotional opportunity it is. I don't see why an mp3 service couldn't be run just like radio. Consumers will flock to it because it will have free mp3s that they'll know are unedited and properly named, the industry will be able to run ads on the service to recover revenue even from users who won't ever buy another album, and they'll get to promote music that might otherwise never be purchased or even heard, because let's face it, turning on the radio today only exposes you to about 20 different bands if you listen for the whole day. I think people in any other industry would kill for even the hint of a chance to make money to promote their product and then make more money when it actually sells.
 

TheJarulf

Banned
{KOW}Spazed said:
Would you put up with them or fight for them to be removed?

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1174

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/27/netherlands_ipod_tax/

Being called the "iPod Tax" the Netherlands are proposing a tax on all MP3 players up to 2.50 euro/gig. The money goes to artist/labels that are losing money to illegal downloading. That adds 120Euro to the 60gig iPod Photo. In a few years the tax on such items will outweigh the price on the device.

I am not defending downloading, I just think it is silly to put such a tax on an item just because it could be used to use something that was illegally obtained. If anything the tax would make me want to download more, get my money's worth. I don't see this going over well.
I think those articles might actually have got it wrong although I must admit, I am not at all sure on dutch copyright law. From my understanding, it is quite similar to how things are in, say, Sweden or Canada, that is, you are allowed to make copies for private use (this includes copies not only for yourself but also for family and close friends for example). It also means, depending on how the law is written, that downloading can be legal (sharing or uploading is typically not though).

To compensate for such legal copying, there is a leavy (spelling?) on recordable media. Typically this has been on blank CDs and DVDs and old cassettes only, but today there are many more forms of media to record and store copies on. One can always question the method or what objects/devices one should put the leavy on and so on, but that is the way it is.

I suspect the dutch case is similar and that one now want to expand what the leavy is applied to so that it also includes for example mp3 players. It has thus nothing really to do with "illegal copying" as such copies would in the most cases be legeal ones to start with and the "tax" is a sort of compensation for allowing such copying. I can be wrong on this case though but in Sweden and Canada, this is the case.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
As far as I can tell:

Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such device shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such device.
Said levy applies to the manufactureres and or importers; while it does get passed on, it isn't necessarily so. Whereas here, it is charged to us, directly.
 

TheJarulf

Banned
In Sweden it is passed on as a cost when the "device" is sold and is currently based on the number of minutes possible to record on the device. In the new proposed copyright law changes, it will instead be based on the number of megabytes possible to store. It will also be broadened to apply to far more different devices (don't remember exactly the definition). In general this will in many cases increase the ammount payed. There are, both in the old and new system a maximum ammount per "device" (for example a single CD).

From the looks, the leavy was 2 öre/min (basically about $0.0035/minute) with a max of about $1.00 and it will now be 2.5 öre/min for non digital devices. For digital devices it will be 0.4 öre ($0.0007) per megabyte if the device allows repeated writing and 0.25 öre ($0.0004) if it does not. You do the calculations for a blank DVD for example. Not sure about the new caps.

How this compare to for example Canada or Netherlands, I have no idea.

EDIT: It was all US dollars, not Canadian ones above.
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
Steel_Avatar said:
Said levy applies to the manufactureres and or importers; while it does get passed on, it isn't necessarily so. Whereas here, it is charged to us, directly.
Do you honestly think that manufacturers selling in the USA don't tack that on to the MSRP?

In Canada's case it's broken out and in plain view, which makes it stand out like a sore(r) thumb. And your tariffs might be higher, too, of course. But just about everyone's paying something to The Man.

* shakes fist at The Man *
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
That's not what I said Durf.

This US law says that the manufacturer pays the levy, which is of course passed on to the consumer. I'm not an idiot.

But as far as I know, the Canadian law directly charges the consumer. While the end result is the same, there is a difference there.
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
Steel_Avatar said:
But as far as I know, the Canadian law directly charges the consumer. While the end result is the same, there is a difference there.
. . . which is exactly what I addressed in my post (it's broken out and in plain view). Doesn't change the fact that consumers on both sides of the border are paying iffy fees to a bunch of corporate leeches. (Not sure what the % is in Japan, now that I think about it . . . something to look into.)
 

TheJarulf

Banned
DurfBarian said:
. . . which is exactly what I addressed in my post (it's broken out and in plain view). Doesn't change the fact that consumers on both sides of the border are paying iffy fees to a bunch of corporate leeches. (Not sure what the % is in Japan, now that I think about it . . . something to look into.)
So if there is a similar thing in the USA, what exactly is it meant to compensate for? As far as I know there isn't such a general "copy for private use" under US copyright law and those fees are, in the countries they exist in, typically to compensate for such legal copying.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
DurfBarian said:
. . . which is exactly what I addressed in my post (it's broken out and in plain view). Doesn't change the fact that consumers on both sides of the border are paying iffy fees to a bunch of corporate leeches. (Not sure what the % is in Japan, now that I think about it . . . something to look into.)
I don't deny that. What I did want to try and address was this:

Do you honestly think that manufacturers selling in the USA don't tack that on to the MSRP?
Of course I don't; I'm not stupid, and that's what I took this to imply.
 
Top