German Court Sets Copyright Tax on New PCs 428
graemee pastes: "The District Court of Munich has ordered Fujitsu Siemens Computers to pay a copyright levy on new PCs. The landmark decision, announced on Thursday, ends a nearly two-year dispute between the largely Germany-based computer maker and the country's VG Wort rights society, which has sought compensation for digital copying. VG Wort had filed a suit against Germany's largest PC maker, Fujitsu Siemens, seeking 30 euro (US$41) for each new computer sold in the country. The court agreed to a 12 euro copyright levy."
May I be the first to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless of course this completely ligitimises copying c.f. Canada. somehow I doubt it though.
Free downloads in Germany.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're already paid for.
(Sure the courts wont see it that way)
~cederic
This sets up a nasty loop (Score:5, Insightful)
What about pencils, etc? (Score:2, Insightful)
why not just accuse everyone as being a thief (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:May I be the first to... (Score:5, Insightful)
EU free trade (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This sets up a nasty loop (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it would seem to legitimize copying copyrighted material - since they are charging you a fee to cover that very thing.
Second, if they still prosecute people copying copyrighted material on a home computer, then how can they justify this? They are already penalizing people without due process and assuming that they are guilty of copyrighting (charging them for it whether they do it or not).
Blazing idiocy (Score:4, Insightful)
Tax this, tax that, distort the market.
VG Wort have increased the price of PCs to *everyone*. Over the whole of the economy, anyone who uses a PC to create a product or offer a service will now have to charge that much more - which means the entire economy is that much less productive, because there is a fixed amount of money available for investment, and the price of buying a PC based service is now higher.
What's more, the knock on effect is huge, because PCs are vital to so many industries. It will now be that much more expensive to buy *food*, because all the PCs bought by food retailers and wholesalers are that much more expensive; and we ALL buy food!
This sort of ruling, the very fact is can occur, is a hallmark of the danger of concentrating economic power in the hands of political power.
This court has both political power - the right to make decisions - and economic power - the right to make decisions which influence, in this case, a form of taxation.
When political decisions are badly made in the political sphere, the consequences are things like national ID cards, or foreign countries becoming upset with us.
When political decisions are badly made in the economic sphere, there is less choice of goods to buy, they cost more, and everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, becomes poorer.
--
Toby
Re:Thank god for our capalist govt. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a bargain! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course that side of the bargain is always conveniently overlooked. I hope this 'success' won't mean similar arrangements in other European countries; but the movie industry would love to collect a tax for private copies we can't make.
Re:Free downloads in Germany.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've indeed paid royalties for the stuff you copy.
Yet this does not make it legal to offer someone else's work for copying.
Various European courts have already confirmed that the downloaders are not the infringers but the uploaders are.
Re:Germanic vs. Roman law (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you misunderstood the intent of the law. The intent of the law is not to make you pay in advance for breaking the law, but for extending your rights as consument by compensating the producer.
The tax was levied on copying devices and media because you were allowed to make copies of music and films. Not just for you personally, but also for friends and family.
I speak in past tense, because AFAIK, the law has been somewhat modified.
Re:Thank god for our capalist govt. (Score:2, Insightful)
Tax vs Copy prof cd's (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank god for our capalist govt. (Score:3, Insightful)
In other headlines... (Score:4, Insightful)
in related news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:drugs tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:May I be the first to... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like the cd-r issue. Either the RIAA gets money from a tax on cd-r, or they get to enforce their copyright for damages in the court... but not both. Both these organisations are effectively double dipping. This shows how courts and governments can be manipulated given the right amount of money.
Why it's wrong is that users pay a fee for using their cd-rs for any legitimate content, and anyone that uses their computer is similarly paying a fee, for the possibility that they might do something illegal with their machine.
(The RIAA and similar organisations are too used to their lucrative contractual deals where they get alot of money for doing very little, such as 15% breakage fees still existing from vinyl days, when even then it was ridiculous for the artist to be paying for that.)
Re:Obviously you are too young and stupid to... (Score:3, Insightful)
And refusing to pay for this "insurance" will no doubt greatly increase the odds of something "bad" happening to you.
Where can I get a piece of this action?
Re:Canada was here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Parts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Parts? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it is january 1st and you probably have a hang-over, but I got news for you: The public don't care! The only ones who care are
Re:Sounds like a bargain! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This makes sense, this is good, stop ranting (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be more impressed with your rant if you knew your facts a bit better. The fact is that there are also similar rights in the US. It is known here as 'fair use'.
is superior to the 18th Century money-comes-first atavism that the U.S.
This seems to fly in the face of this recent decision to pre-tax Siemans to benefit copyright holders based on the assumption that everyone buyig a PC is copyright violater.
German courts took about a week to bitch-slap Darl's minions back into the real world
Really? I didn't think that SCO sued anyone in Germany. The only information I have seen regarding SCO in Germany is that they have been enjoined from making claims regarding copyright violations without revealing more about the factual basis of the claims. While perhaps this is a positive in a case like SCO, it seems to me to be an indication that free-speach rights are pretty weak in Germany.
Re:May I be the first to... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have a similar fee on all printers, copiers and scanners, since using one of those may also be practicing fair use. Not to mention CD and DVD players, televisions, and radios. Thos machines are also essential elements in fair use of purchased media.
I've got it, the eyeball and earlobe fee, that way they can get everybody. Doesn't matter if your deaf and blind, because I'm sure those people don't get out of paying the 'fair use fee' on their computers.
Re:May I be the first to... (Score:5, Insightful)
While we might not know where all the levy money went, we at least now know the levies will be gone soon (in Canada), assuming they have not already been abolished thanks to the court's decision.
I wonder what kind of share independents manage to get from royalty claims. Since the RIAA regularly forgets that a free/independent market exists and sues intependents who distribute their own stuff, it must be quite a hassle for independents to fight off the RIAA if it accidentally (but happily) files levy claims for unlicensed productions.
People should realize that governments are becoming a system of "by rich people for rich people" instead of the "by the people for the people" they used to be and should be - governments are another area where the barriers to entry are rising every round, effectively keeping most people out.
Re:This makes sense, this is good, stop ranting (Score:1, Insightful)
If the Americans here could stop foaming at the mouth for a few minutes and listen to what the Germans here are trying to tell them they would realize that this not only makes complete sense, but also shows how much more sane the German system is.
If a German company buys a thousand computers for office work, why should they be forced by the government to subsidise the already very lucrative music industry? Despite your claims to the contrary, that makes no sense whatsoever.
If I write and record a song independently, how do I go about claiming my money from computer sales in Germany? I'm not German and don't have a record contract with a major label. But if my song is being copied, I should be able to get something, shouldn't I? Why should the German government help one organisation in particular?
If copying is illegal, and these record companies feel they are being harmed, they already have a response - sue the people doing it. That is the correct response. Something illegal -> stop the illegal actions. Not something illegal -> take money off one industry and give to another.
Re:May I be the first to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they may get to do both here. In the US, 22 states now have laws on the books that say drug dealers must pay tax on the illegal drugs they sell. Of course these states aren't actually going to collect anything, but it gives them something else to charge drug dealers with when they're arrested. Unfortunately, this is an example that the RIAA can point at and say "look, we can tax an illegal activity and still go after people for doing it." IANAL, but this seems a very dangerous example to set.
Re:Thank god for our capalist govt. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This sets up a nasty loop (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay money every year for the tax levies appropriate to registering a car and having a license to drive said car. That's what I get in exchange for paying the levy. If I pay the levy but don't drive, then I've wasted my money. If someone arbitrarily comes along and tells me, for no reason, "you can't drive even though you paid the levy", I think I've got a reason to be angry, and I'd want my money back.
While in some cases, levies can be insignificant compared to the purchase cost of an item, and sometimes they're not, if you're going to just focus on the percentage of this and the percentage of that, you are missing the entire point. We pay the levy, we earn the right to perform the activity which is covered by that levy. If you don't want people doing it, don't set up a scheme to compensate for the fact that it is done.
Re:Thank god for our capalist govt. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry. It just means that non-oil economy won't start in the US. US will be forced to follow, though. The oil megacorps will kick and scream while being dragged off the scene, maybe buy few more years of life, but that's about all they will be able to do.
Same like stem cell research. If the clerofascists ban/restrict it in the US, it only means Korea will become the biomed leader.
The world is too big to allow a comparatively small group to stop the progress. Slow down, perhaps - but not stop.
Re:"getting rich" is a "more likely perspective"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps most humans are not as fixated as you are with comparing themselves to their neighbors. Having a comfortable life is one of my goals. Being one of the top x% of the "rich" is not, and I don't lie awake at night concerned that somebody else has more than me. As you and the left continually fail to realize, the economy is not a zero sum game.
Re:May I be the first to... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's all SORT of ways to steal, ain't there?
Re:Has anyone tried defending an infringement suit (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe they got the law giving them lovely money to compensate them for the FAIR-USE copies.
A beautiful, nasty, WRONG argument, because a copyright holder is not entitled to compensation for Fair Use copying. That's WHY it's called Fair Use: because it is fair for the user to copy without paying.
But it sidetracks the whole Why-Am-I-Being-Sued-For-Copying-When-I've-Already
That's why word meanings are important! You can't let your foe own the win by redefining the terms used in your arguments so that you can't even make yourself understood in the debate. Orwell made this clear. L. Ron Hubbard used word redefinitions (Win, Enemy, etc) in his writings to redefine how his followers thought when certain key words were used, making argument with his ideas impossible. Redefinitions of the word "pirate" and "thief" to describe copying intangibles was intentional on the **AA's part. Bush's PR people reconstituted the simple idea of the word "torture" into the less objectionable "abuse" in the news media. It's all about the words. If your opponent removes your ability to express yourself in words understandable by a third party, you've lost.