Slashdot Log In
Spain Adds 'Copyright Tax' to Blank Media
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Jun 27, 2006 08:35 PM
from the angry-geeks dept.
from the angry-geeks dept.
Poker Forums writes "Just read on Zeropaid that Spain has recently voted in compulsory copyright licensing, levying a tax on all blank media. This includes cd-r, dvd-r, flash media, printers, scanners, cell phones, everything. The tax will be collected by the government and 'given to the copyright holder.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Spain Outlaws P2P File-Sharing 432 comments
Section_Ei8ht writes "Spanish Congress has made it a civil offense to download anything via p2p networks, and a criminal offense for ISP's to allow users to file-share, even if the use is fair. There is also to be a tax on all forms of blank media, including flash memory drives. I guess the move towards distributing films legally via BitTorrent is a no go in Spain." Here is our coverage of the tax portion of this law.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Spain Adds 'Copyright Tax' to Blank Media
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 348 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Some light (Score:5, Informative)
(http://vistoenbp.net/)
... given to a my ass...
The tax will be charged indiscriminately to manufacturers who, according to SGAE (our particular RIAA), are the ones taking advantage of all this """illegal""" copying (private copying for personal use with no money involved is still legal in Spain), and will mostly be given to this same organization. Problem is manufacturers are gonna pass the tax on to customers, and so the cycle of life closes.
And SGAE, of course, will use the money not to pay the authors, but to spread the word through adoctrination lectures, or to pay for lobbies to bully Brussels, or to cry louder about how bad people is and how poor authors are getting (despite SGAE's doubling benefits every year...).
The one improvement of this law is that now the tax has to be proportional to the cost of the medium; currently when we buy a DVD+R, the tax is higher than the price of the DVD itself... And stupidity didn't get to add DSL and Cable lines to the list, though they were in the top 10...
The title should read "Spanish politicians surrender to stupidity" (which wouldn't be so new, either), or sth similar...
Re:Some light (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some light (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as your the copyright holder of the content of the DVD.
I hope the people wrking on Linux Distros get the pay too, that's what I use my DVD's for.
FSF and Linus should get tons of money in Spain! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the SGAE can't easilydodge that responsibility either, because to do so would be to accept that much media gets used for things other than music and videos, and that therefore the tax should not apply to all media.
Can't have it both ways.
Re:FSF and Linus should get tons of money in Spain (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 05 2005, @03:50AM)
I actually believe that if there is a branch of the EFF in Spain, they should argue exactly this. Does the law explicitly state what determins is a copyright holder?
This is a good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a canadian who pays a similar tax on media, I have to disagree with your assesment.
This tax is one step further *away* from loosing your right to copy audio files. A step away from legally protected DRM.
And if you don't like the tax, buy harddrives. They are cheap, less likely to fail, and a lot easier to use. I have 30 movies and 8 *seasons* of television shows on one of my harddrives. Heck I'm too lazy to convert movies to XVID, I just dump them out raw. I have a flash based mp3 player and I set the auto-play options for audio cd's on my PC to just rip the thing. I view CDs/DVDs as an incovenince I am glad to be rid of.
Considering the pending obsolecence of shiny platic disks, this seems like a good thing for Spain. Enjoy the freedom to do what you want with your data while you have it.
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you play hard drives on your TV or in your car? Can you mail them to your grandma or give them to your friends? Can you distribute them at a concert to promote your band, or at a convention to promote your indie game? You could, but it would be stupid and expensive. Recordable disks are very well suited for these purposes and there is no replacement yet.
Re:Some light (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some light (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday November 12, @09:52AM)
Because some non-infringing uses do, nonetheless, in theory lessen the revenue available to the copyright holder?
One of the purposes of copyright is to ensure a stream of revenue that can used to fund the creation of the works copyrighted. You can do this by making draconian laws that make it impossible for people to use any copy of anything without the copyright holder's permission, or you can loosen the laws a little but do something to ensure the creators lose nothing from the liberalization of the law. When CDR copying became a substantial phenominem, the imbalance was seen to be upset, and many governments are using a compulsory royalty system to rebalance the system rather than "the other options" which are either to see a net decrease in revenue for copyright holders, or to introduce draconian laws banning CDR copying.
I'm sure many Slashdotters would rather see a net decrease in revenue for copyright holders, but that isn't a universally held opinion. There are many in the content industry that wish that the government would butt-out, and simply pass on all responsibility for licensing content to them, banning unlicensed CDRs. This is a middle ground that allows the technology to continue to exist while ensuring the content industry doesn't suffer for it.
Now watch me get modded down for stating the obvious, again.
In the US, the answer is "yes..." (Score:5, Interesting)
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
Theoretically, yes. In practice, no.
"The AHRA also provides for a royalty tax of up to $8 per new digital recording machine and 3 percent of the price of all digital audiotapes or discs. This tax is paid by the manufacturers of digital media devices and distributed to the copyright owners whose music is presumably being copied. In consideration of this tax, copyright owners agree to forever waive the right to claim copyright infringement against consumers using audio recording devices in their homes."
Governments will always vote in new taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
How to change a digital system? (Score:5, Interesting)
In a digital age where we are dealing with Intellectual Property, digitial censorship and hidden taxes it makes me wonder just what excatly a revolt or revolution against it would be like?
I can't imagine thousands of people marching through the streets finding government officals and decapating them, but you would think we will eventually get to a point where everything just gets too much.
We are now in the 21st century and are beginning to see the downsides of all the technology we have adopted, in the late 90's it was promosing, now we are seeing new emerging ways to control us, deny us of fundamental rights and governements seem to be finding new ways to write laws and profit from it.
does that include (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 07 2006, @07:46PM)
Re:does that include (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:does that include (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, it's apportioned based on the number of lobbyists each copyright holder pays for, as well as the campaign contributions of copyright holders to current holders of elected office.
Re:does that include (Score:4, Funny)
okay, then the result should be (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 15, @03:36PM)
Okay, if laws are in place to fairly compensate the copyright owners by taxing recordable media the offshoot of that should be continued "enjoyment" of what we've come to know as fair use. Ostensibly this tax should cover disbursements back to the artists for any copying and/or sharing consumers do.
A question from The Fine Article: "Is this an example of what is to come in the United States or other parts of Europe?", isn't this already a tax in place on recordable media in the United States? I seem to remember that a while back, or was it Canada?
Regardless, the entertainment industry can't have it both ways, they either tax in advance and anticipation of our "abuses", or they implement draconian DRM. Unfortunately it's looking like they're getting both.
Re:okay, then the result should be (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHRA [wikipedia.org]
Re:okay, then the result should be (Score:5, Informative)
Also there are "Audio" CD-ROMs which carry a royalty. However, there's no reason to use them unless you have a standalone stereo component CD copier.
Ripe for abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.slipstreams.net/)
Can I have my check now, please?
Must be nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess thats my problem I sell things if people don't buy them I have to do something else I never considered wrecking everyone else life so mine could be a little better
Answer me this: (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ictsc.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 09 2006, @10:15PM)
Does this mean you can circumvent any DRM or other technical measures to protect the material on other media / files to burn them since you have paid this tax?....
Do I get tax back if I end up burning a coaster?....
Can you easily get tax back if its material you own the copyright to that you are burning?....
Does this include Software products and movie DVD rips and if so are you going to have to tell the media supplier what you intend to make copies of?....
Thought Not.
More accurate question might be:
Is this yet another revenue stream (on top of all the others) for someone somewhere who feels that their profits are not what they could be, and another kick to the teeth of fair use (If that exists in Spain)?
Yes.
Either prosecute people for copyright infringement (regardless how insane the laws surrounding that are) or leave the blank media alone. - By the way shouldn't the tax be on paper not Printers? after all the paper is the media. Mobile phones? Are they going to pay the copyright holders of the text messages I receive too?
If this is true then this is madness, and needs to be challenged before it spreads.
Which one? (Score:3, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~Infonaut/journal | Last Journal: Tuesday July 31, @02:22PM)
'given to the copyright holder.'
Which one? Bono or Spielberg?
... France has it too (Score:3, Informative)
They should tax brains too, you can store a lot of tunes into them, + it wouldn't be a huge cost for our lawmakers.
New Concept in Capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have people make copies of my photos/minor_software_project/whatever on CD-R and then sue the Spanish RIAA if they don't send me my portion of payments. It's really odd that they represent ALL copyright holders. Like they represent ALL musicians, even the ones not signed up with RIAA companies. This RIAA racket has to be taken on and bought down in flames like the Hindenburg one day.
Re:New Concept in Capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:New Concept in Capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday May 03 2004, @11:25PM)
From the blog linked by zeropaid (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, their artists' profits are increasing faster than theirs. No wonder Spain needed a new tax!
It's worth pointing out, however, that this kind of infringement is a big thing in Spain. In the area I saw, it was so ingrained that they called it 'top manta' (manta == sheet), named after the sheet that the street-sellers of usually pirated music use, so that if the police come along, they can grab the four corners of the sheet, bundle the music into it instantly, and disappear.
The solution, punish everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Never liked these, myself... (Score:3)
(http://www.artcrime.com/ktakki/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 26 2007, @11:12PM)
I'm do support strong copyrights, but also a strong defense of fair use. I was a songwriter who did manage to eke out a modest living from sales and royalties back in the day (and considered breaking even on tour a rare event). But I always saw these blank media taxes (along with early forms of DRM like Copy Code) as an unfair burden on musicians and songwriters who are at that difficult early phase of their career arcs. It may be a small percentage of the cost of media, but in the long run it adds up, and it's money that could be better spent on things like more media, guitar strings, drum sticks, software, hardware, and the all important elixirs: coffee and beer.
And I never liked that the taxes collected went to the top tier of artists. For every one of these, a Springsteen, a Madonna, a Bono, there are 10,000 strivers, sequestered in a home studio, trying to get that vocal or cowbell track perfect.
So, I'd feel more comfortable if half of the funds levied by these taxes could benefit the unsigned, the unheard. Start with public school music programs, which are woefully underfunded as it is, and often fall victim to budget cuts. That's how I started out, a nine-year-old trumpet player in a grade school orchestra. Maybe there could be some sort of indie label lottery, where some band's vanity label gets a $10,000 infusion of funds, maybe even a promotional campaign sponsored by Maxell, Imation, TDK, Sony, or some other producer of blank media ("The stars of tomorrow use our CD-RWs today...").
Idealistic, I know. But why the hell not?
k.
Where can I sign up (Score:3, Funny)
So let me get this straight, all you need to be is a copyright holder and you get free money from the Spanish government? I always thought my preschool performance of Mary Had a Little Lamb was good... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
Business model (Score:4, Informative)
2. ???????
3. Profit!!
I think this is true until further notice. The article was hardly and article, but what it did say did not mention how the money would be apportioned amongst the copyright holders. If I have copyrights on crap no one would buy, do I still get a cut?
Anyway, I've got to head out and make some stuff to copyright in Spain, and set up a bank account there.
Re:Unfortunately, (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.cafepress.com/lehk | Last Journal: Wednesday July 25, @12:50AM)
i work in a grocery store, do we get compensated every time some asshole runs out the door with a carriage full of meat and seafood? no of course not. does best buy get compensated by the government if someone jacks a trailer full of electronic gear? no.
what makes the music industry so special?
4 steps to Profit!!! (Score:3, Informative)
2. Get the government to collect royalties on blank media.
3. ????
4. Profit!
Further proof that "government" is owned by... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Mark me as redundant by saying so if you like, but I don't think it can be said enough.
There are two things wrong with this action:
1. If the copyright organization (cartel?) can continue with civil and criminal law suits for infringement, then it is clear that this measure is not for the purpose of compensating copyright holders for illegal activity. (Theoretically, I should be able to purchase blank DVD media in Spain and set up a business where I copy copyrighted material and sell it to the public at an attractive price. After all, would I not have already paid for the right to do so by purchasing the media in Spain?)
2. If there is no way to know which artistic works are to be copied, then how will the money find its way to the artists whose works are being illegally copied? The answer is obvious. The money doesn't go to compensate artists, and if it does, it won't go to the artists affected in correct proportion.
I hope to see some serious retaliation against the "copyright industry." They have been going too far for too long. They write their own laws, they collect their own taxes, they perform their own criminal investigations and all but convict in their own courts. If ever there was something out of control, this situation defines it.
Small business suffers yet again (Score:3, Insightful)
These sort of levies are grossly unfair because they target everyone, irrespective of the relevance.
What TFA doesn't say (Score:5, Informative)
The new LPI (Ley de Propiedad Intelectual == Intelectual Property Law) establishes a tax over any device capable of holding media (audio or video), such as CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, videotapes... but also iPods and pendrives. The preliminary draft of the law also included a tax over HDs but this was removed from the final draft due to outcry from computer distributors.
On the other hand, the old LPI (from 1996) forbade the copy of copyrighted content for redistribution to other people, but didn't mention anything about DRM. There was a legal item called "private copy", meaning that you can do one (and only one) copy of your copyrighted content for private use as a backup. Now, according to the new law, not only is specifically illegal to override any DRM scheme: the law also makes illegal the POSSESSION of any program intended for override DRM, such a DVD ripper, or any hardware intended for overriding other 'electronic countermeasures'.
Many people say that there is a patent contradiction here, since you are paying for a right that you can't actually use.
Previously, the rationale behind the tax was this 'private copy'. Now, the rationale is to compensate for the losses that the recording companies have when you copy content from one media to another: for example, since you can copy your old videotape movie to a DVD, you are not buying a DVD for a movie you already have; or you are not going to buy a MP3 for your iPod of a song that you already have on CD-audio.
And, funny thing, we have been paying the tax long before the new law was approved.
At least now the tax is a percentage of the value of the blank media; according to the previous "canon" (law) the tax was a fixed amount of money that was about a quarter of the blank media value, but since the prices went down and the tax didn't, today the final price of a DVD is 60% tax.
Also, some people say that since the tax has been extended to CD-DVD burners, you end paying the tax twice-on the media and on the recorder.
And no, you can't get a refund if you use your CDs to burn non-copyrighted content. For example, the ministry of justice is paying tons of money to the SGAE (think of a fusion RIAA+MPAA+AAP) because a copy of all the judicial proceedings on every court have to be stored in 'electronic form' (CD-r).
The SGAE, the law's main supporter, says that the final draft is not enough since doesn't include taxes over internet connections, HDs , and "any other format capable of holding or transferring copyrighted content"
As a side note, one of the SGAE top execs, who also happened to be an artist years ago, had to run out of a rock festival recently because the public was throwing stones at him; this story was mentioned on all news sources in spain, but all of them falied to mention the ultimate reason for the people's hate towards the exec.
If I am the copyright holder... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.openvoice.com.au/free/)
can I claim a tax deduction?
They're "protecting" copyright, but forgetting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to tax food, because that's used in copyrighted recipes.
They need to tax scanners and digital cameras, because they can be used to capture images of copyrighted works.
They need to tax chairs, because the person doing the copying of copyrighted works usually sits in one.
They need to tax wood, because that's used in furniture upon which the equipment used to copy copyrighted works usually sits.
They need to tax magnets, because they can be used in speakers that a person can use to listen to copyrighted works.
They need to tax monitors, because they can be used to view.
purchase from other EU member states (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.rapiddescentscotland.co.uk/)
The EU has been extremely vigilant to ensure that free trade can continue over the borders - even where local taxes are being compromised. USAians: It's like buying your stuff in a state with lower sales tax.
the EU has open borders. so use them!
Fine.... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.joshferguson.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 17 2005, @05:11PM)