And the Bullshit Legal Concept Award goes to... Private copying levy! Congrats! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2019, 05:59:39 pm
content: So, I've been reading into this thingie and its implementation in my country:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levyI 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

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2019, 06:25:35 pm
content: 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.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2019, 06:28:09 pm
content: 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...

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2019, 07:10:41 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on April 19, 2019, 06:28:09 pmThe 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).

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2019, 07:39:21 pm
content: 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 areallowedto 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 deemedillegalanyway -- 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.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2019, 02:38:43 pm
content: 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.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2019, 08:30:42 pm
content: They have this in Switzerland, too. I, for one, don’t mind the trivial tax on blank media, given that in return, it isexpresslylegal 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.)

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2019, 04:57:42 am
content: QuoteThe 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.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2019, 09:30:07 am
content: 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.)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2019, 04:01:39 pm
content: 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.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2019, 10:34:05 pm
content: Given how pervasive software piracy is, I’m not entirely sure that’s a bad idea...

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 12:10:02 am
content: 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.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 09:42:39 am
content: QuoteWell, 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.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 10:19:51 am
content: 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.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 10:37:01 am
content: Quote from: daqq on April 25, 2019, 09:42:39 amOriginally, 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 nearlyeverydata storage device was being used for music storage, from the hard disks in computers, to flash memory cards, to data CD-Rs.Quote from: daqq on April 25, 2019, 09:42:39 amWell, 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 originallydidcharge 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 definitelywasfor 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.Quote from: daqq on April 25, 2019, 09:42:39 amNot only the local Bieber equivalent, but the original Biebs, too!! :pI 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.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 10:44:04 am
content: Quote from: soldar on April 25, 2019, 10:19:51 amI'm not sure you can describe it that way. Media levies are imposed by law. Regardless of whether it'scollectedvia the government or a designated "private" agent, it's the law thatimposesthe 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...Quote from: soldar on April 25, 2019, 10:19:51 amThat's certainly possible. But that's an implementation failure, not a conceptual one.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 11:18:59 am
content: 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!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 04:05:03 pm
content: 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.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 06:34:46 pm
content: QuoteI 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.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 06:48:50 pm
content: 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.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 07:09:18 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 25, 2019, 06:48:50 pmAssuming that the previous owner of that used CD did the same, do you see the flaw in that "paying for content" system?

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 07:29:57 pm
content: 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

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 07:46:16 pm
content: Quote from: bloguetronica on April 25, 2019, 07:29:57 pmYeah, sure, along with copyrighted books, paintings, photography etc.! If those darn artists feel the need to "express themselves", they better do it for free!!!

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 08:02:51 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on April 25, 2019, 07:46:16 pmArt 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.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 08:14:20 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on April 25, 2019, 07:09:18 pmNo. 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.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 08:18:49 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 25, 2019, 06:48:50 pmThose 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.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 08:58:24 pm
content: 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.

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2019, 11:37:42 pm
content: 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

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 12:24:40 am
content: 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).

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 07:19:17 am
content: Quote from: bloguetronica on April 25, 2019, 11:37:42 pmCopyright 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.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 am
content: Quote from: tooki on April 24, 2019, 09:30:07 amWhat 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!Quote from: soldar on April 26, 2019, 07:19:17 amYes 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.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 11:19:10 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amYou mean, you can't accept that newfangled copyright revision by the1886 Berne convention1908 Berlin Act?https://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/2486-copyright-timelineQuoteThe "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 technicalconcept, 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.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 11:37:49 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on April 26, 2019, 11:19:10 amI 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.QuoteIn 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.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amI 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.Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amTake it down a notch, man.The reason for copyright levies like this is to cover the situations thatcan'tbe 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.Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amSomeone already said this above, and this was my reply:Quote from: tooki on April 24, 2019, 10:34:05 pmQuote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amIt'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.Shedoeshave 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".Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amYes. 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?)Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amSo 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 forthat??", but at some point one has to strike a balance betweenabsolutefairness and practicality.Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 10:23:31 amThe 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 arefarlarger 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.)

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 12:45:26 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 11:37:49 amI 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.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 01:27:31 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on April 24, 2019, 10:34:05 pmQuite 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

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 01:41:48 pm
content: 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 merelymostlysure that it’s a bad idea!

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 03:42:04 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmBad 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?Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmIf she's in "the media" then the media can pay the royalties. Why are they not paying? And, more importantly, why should I pay?Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmThere is societal value in many things and they are paid out of the general taxes and funds. Why should "artists" get this special treatment?Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmDo 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.

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 05:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 26, 2019, 11:37:49 amYup, 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

author: jaromir
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 05:57:16 pm
content: 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

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 07:18:42 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmFairness 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.Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmCopying 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.Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmNo 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.Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmSo why bother with copyright and all the problems it creates if artist make their bread and butter by live performances anyway?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 07:31:33 pm
content: 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.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 07:43:22 pm
content: Quote from: apis on April 26, 2019, 07:18:42 pmI 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 twodecades. 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 thenorm, 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?QuotePray 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?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 07:58:20 pm
content: 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.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 08:06:05 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on April 26, 2019, 12:45:26 pmNo, I already have more than enough money. My job pays well enough. I just think people should be paid for what they make.Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmBut 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.QuoteA 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.Quote from: ebastler on April 26, 2019, 07:43:22 pmIt'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.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2019, 09:18:34 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on April 26, 2019, 07:43:22 pmThat 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.Quote from: ebastler on April 26, 2019, 07:43:22 pmThere 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."Quote from: ebastler on April 26, 2019, 07:43:22 pmActually, 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.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2019, 12:53:15 am
content: 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.Quote from: soldar on April 26, 2019, 03:42:04 pmTheyarepaying. (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...)

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2019, 07:11:13 am
content: Quote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmI 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.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2019, 08:11:11 am
content: Quote from: tooki on April 27, 2019, 12:53:15 amYou are moving the goalposts all over the place. This thread is about "private copying levies" and you saidQuote from: tooki on April 26, 2019, 12:38:23 pmPrivate 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.

author: stj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2019, 09:39:23 am
content: 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!!!!

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2019, 10:25:37 am
content: Funny side fact: at least in Germany there is a clear distinction between analog an digital copy but also between books and other media. Like the fee fo fee on photocopier, printers etc. is handled by a different organization ("collecting society") than the one on blank CDs, HDs, MP3 players etc.Now as stated above, the idea was once somehow valid for analog copies. I.e. you were/are explicitly allowed to copy videos and music for friends and family (the famous "mixed tape") since you payed a little fee on the blank cassettes. Initially, this concept was also valid for music CDs but then the media industry began being worried about "lossless" digital copies (e.g. MP3 isn't lossless of course, but digital copies thereof are) and pushed through a copyright act that forbids to make copies of media protected by "effective technical means". So since then the situation is that you are forced to pay a fee for something that the copyright holder deny you by implementing a protection.Actually the situation has become even weirder nowadays. Typically most CDs don't have protection (wrong TOC, bad sectors) anymore and e.g. if you buy a CD on Amazon, you get to download the MP3 for free as well. But obviously Amazon is assuming that you are not allowed to copy the MP3s even though you paid your fee on all your HDs, MP3 players and what not. So it embeds a little personalized tracking information in each of your MP3s that is a bit tricky to detect and delete. I guess that would argue that you could create MP3s from your unprotected CD yourself legally correct but are still not allowed to copy their MP3s. But what nonsense is that? How does this help the copyright holder? I guess at some point, everybody lost track of what is allowed and what is not and now everybody assumes that everything is forbidden.As a side note: while I could understand the fee for music/video media at least while it was not forbidden by other means, I never understood the fee for printers, scanners and copiers. I mean, nobody ever copied a normal (belletristic) book in western Europe (and scientific/educational use was always handled differently). I know that was a thing in parts of the Soviet Union in the 80s but never in (West) Germany where we had to (and still have to) pay these fees. There was (is?) even a regulation that decreasing the speed of a scanner would decrease the fee to pay for it. So most scanners worked slowed in Germany. But who ever used a scanner to commit any commercially relevant copyright violation? This whole concept was and is just totally insane.The craziest part though is the algorithm used to distribute the money to the copyright holders as it's not like anybody would get any relevant amount of money back. Indeed, most surprisingly, I was very surprised to get back a very humble amount myself since I somehow got into their system as author for publishing my thesis. It was a ridiculous sum of maybe 0,50€ (was still the time of German Marks I guess) but it shows that something is terribly wrong as my thesis was published on microfiche by a small scientific publisher (just to push the number of publications for my supervisor) and I doubt anybody ever bought it let alone copied it.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2019, 11:00:27 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on April 27, 2019, 08:11:11 amYou don’t know what “moving the goalpost” means, dude. You can disagree with my position without a) claiming bogus logical flaws, and b) being rude overall.