Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News

MP3 Company Refuses to Pay Swedish Copyright Levy 296

Posted by Hemos from the fight-the-power dept.
praps writes "Swedish MP3 player manufacturer Jens is to be hauled before the courts for flatly refusing to pay a charge designed to compensate copyright owners whose music is copied to a different format for private use, reports news site The Local. Jens says the surcharge, administered by Copyswede, is unreasonable and that "it's not our problem that the record industry hasn't come up with its own solution". Apparently Apple doesn't pay it on their iPods either."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MP3 Company Refuses to Pay Swedish Copyright Levy More

MP3 Company Refuses to Pay Swedish Copyright Levy

Comments Filter:

  • Go Jens! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yotto ( 590067 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:28AM (#13595255) Homepage
    I need some good earbuds, maybe I'll buy some from you.

  • Finally!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ParrotDroppings ( 171035 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:29AM (#13595261) Homepage
    At last, one real-world company that fights back to the MPAA/RIAA/Copyright mongers!
    I hope they will put the trial on TV like they did with mr. Jackson.
    L33T ! W00T !!

    • Re:Finally!! (Score:3, Informative)

      by drstock ( 621360 )
      I hope they will put the trial on TV like they did with mr. Jackson.

      Actually, here in sweden it's not allowed to film or take photos in court. You are only allowed to record sound and make sketches.

    • Re:Finally!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:06AM (#13595985)

      " At last, one real-world company that fights back to the MPAA/RIAA/Copyright mongers!"

      Know thine enemy. Like similar national copyright collectives, Copyswede collects money on behalf of authors and performers. None goes to the RIAA, not even as an intermediary.

      This is vitally important for everybody to understand if they subscribe to the general philosophy that artists are the good guys while record companies are the bad guys.

      • Re:Finally!! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cranktheguy ( 731726 )
        WRONG. The money goes to copyright holders. Most artist do not own their own copyrights. Their record companies do.

        • Re:Finally!! (Score:3, Informative)

          by shark72 ( 702619 )

          " WRONG. The money goes to copyright holders. Most artist do not own their own copyrights. Their record companies do."

          You're partially correct. Here in the US, the record company typically owns the copyright on the recording, while the artist retains the copyright on the words and music -- also known as the "publishing rights." Here in the US we have a couple of non-profit societies, ASCAP and BMI, that make sure the artists get paid for radio airplay, jukebox airplay, and pretty much everything else

  • To take Jens' side. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alsn ( 911813 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:31AM (#13595272)
    The ridiculous thing about this whole deal is that the law specifically states that its supposed to be compensation for "private copies" which before this law was just as legal as it was after. The only difference is that all of a sudden makes of movable media(cds, casettes, dvds, etc etc) was supposed to pay extra to the copyright owners because they felt people should have to pay to be able to use their music how they wanted.

    • MPAA/RIAA on the offensive in Sweden (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:53AM (#13595413)
      A few months ago, there was a case where the MPAA/RIAA oriented anti-copyright agency, the piratbyrån used insiders to plant evidence on a company's server and then raid them BSA style. There is also a lot of pro-softwarepatent work and lobbying going on behind the scenes in the agencies.

      • Re:MPAA/RIAA on the offensive in Sweden (Score:5, Informative)

        by md2perpe ( 866452 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:21AM (#13595597)
        Ehm... It was not Piratbyrån, but Antipiratbyrån.

        • Re:MPAA/RIAA on the offensive in Sweden (Score:5, Informative)

          by sp3tt ( 856121 ) <sp3tt@sp[ ].se ['3tt' in gap]> on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:06AM (#13595982)
          Ok, what idiot modded this overrated? It is clearly informative.
          Piratbyrån ("The pirate bureau") is an anti-copyright, non-profit organization. Antipiratbyrån ("The anti-pirate bureau") is the MPAA and BSA's face in Sweden. They do not represent the music industry, a common misconception.
          Piratbyrån's name is a pun on Antipiratbyrån. Piratbyrån is also against software patents, and has often figured in Swedish TV.

          The incident refered to by the Grandparent was in March. Antipiratbyrån made a raid on the Swedish ISP Bahnhof, which incidentally happened to be in the same building. Four servers were confiscated by the police, they were thought to contain copyrighted material. The disks were encrypted, so no luck there. Later it was revealed by a group of hackers that an employee of Antipiratbyrån had planted the material on the servers. FYI, we're talking a few hundred gigabytes. Email conversations between the employee and Antipiratbyrån were published on antipiratbyråns webpage, which was hacked.
          Bahnhof later published a report (not available in English) about the incident, claiming that Bahnhof had nothing to do with it, and that Antipiratbyrån themselves were guilty.

  • Complete Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:31AM (#13595274) Homepage Journal
    My opinion is that such a levy is complete bullshit. It is under the guise that it is meant to compensate an industry that MANUFACTURES NUMBERS to make it seem like piracy is their single loss of revenue, and that is more than questionable. I mean, is there anything in place making Toaster makers pay a fee for all of the hoodlums stealing loaves of bread? No. And this is equally as stupid. I applaud someone standing up to this garbage.

    • Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cronius ( 813431 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:42AM (#13595353)
      As stupid as it is, I would actually accept it if it means distributing copyrighted material would be legal. But they're getting it both ways (it's illegal, AND we're supposed to pay for those who don't follow the law, regardless what we do ourselves) and that's just stupid.

      I'm talking from a consumers point of view, I can see why a company wouldn't like it either way.

      • Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Xarius ( 691264 )
        (it's illegal, AND we're supposed to pay for those who don't follow the law, regardless what we do ourselves)

        We pay taxes which fund police, fire and ambulance services, even if we aren't responsible for the law being broken, the house burning down, and the crazy cat-ladies stroke.

        Sucks though.

        • Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot...kadin@@@xoxy...net> on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:24AM (#13595624) Homepage Journal
          No, you've got it turned around. You pay taxes so that there will be a police department there if your house gets broken into, a fire department if it catches on fire, an ambulance service if you fall down the stairs, etc. That is to say, you pay taxes because these are all things which you might one day have a need for, and when you need them, you really NEED them. Also they're arguably (and yes I am aware that this point could go either way) not things the free market would adequately provide.

          You are paying for the service before you use it -- just like you'd pay for a tech support contract, or insurance, basically.

          These copyright "taxes" are completely different in that they place the consumer in the role of the criminal, paying damages for a crime they haven't committed yet, under the assumption that they are either complicit or somehow involved in it. There's not any good natural or common law analogy that I can come up with for it, which makes me suspect that it's probably unreasonable.

          • Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)

            by aaronl ( 43811 )
            The worst part is that a government tax is supposed to go to the government. This is the government allowing the recording company to use the force of government to levy and collect tax, to be paid to their private company. That is wholly inappropriate, and likely illegal in all EU countries.

            Think of it this way, if the government collects a tax from you to fund the school, they have to allow you to use the school now. If the government collects a tax to pay for copyright infringement, by that logic, the

      • Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)

        by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro@gmaDALIil.com minus painter> on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:22AM (#13595610) Journal
        It all sounds like a music industry protection racket to me
        (MIE : Music industry executive .. PrM :Product manufacturer)

        MIE : Hello Mr Jackson , Nice product you have here

        Prm : Yeah it is , is it not

        MIE :Shame if something would happen to it .

        PrM: What like ...

        MIE: Well say some of your customers used it to break the law
        *MIE pushes one on to the floor*

        MIE:Whoops Accidents will happen Mr Jackson . So we are proposing a little levy to cover you incase anything bad happens

        PrM : GET OUT!

        MIE :I will , but think about what i said .. you wouldn't want anything to happen to that nice shiny sports car out there .Say if the Boys (Accidentally) had to take it in lieu of a fine for facilitating copyright infringement.

        PrM : OK you'll get your money

      • Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)

        by halr9000 ( 465474 )
        I understand what you are saying, but I disagree on all levels. I look at it from a consumer's point of view in saying that MY price will go up if THEIR price goes up. Plus the concept is just ridiculous. Why should the government enforce a subsidization of a private enterprise? Why not cut the BS and just increase your taxes so that the government can issue an MP3 player to every citizen? Same thing, really!

      • Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bleckywelcky ( 518520 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:23AM (#13596130)
        That's bullshit. I haven't downloaded any copyrighted material from labels in the RIAA, yet if I want to have an MP3 player to carry around my free Indie music, I have to pay the RIAA? About all you're saying with your post is that you are admitting you steal music, and you want everyone else to pay to legitimize your theft.

  • International Legal summary? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:32AM (#13595281) Homepage
    Is there a list somewhere on the web that hilights all the crazy quirks of copyright law in each country? It seems to be a very unresolved area of law, with plenty of opportunities for hijinks.

  • Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrsev ( 664367 ) <mrsev@ELIOTspymac.com minus poet> on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:32AM (#13595287)
    May I wish them all my support. As far as I see it it is a tax that is paid to a private company. In the same way that when ever I do a data back-up I must pay "sony et al" some money for the "blank media" . This is in Portugal at least. One shop tha tI know....mediamarkt. Actually puts how much you pay on he receipt. In this way I found out I was also paying a "recycling" tax on my RECHARGABLE batteries.

    "They shaft us coz we take it!"

    • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mdielmann ( 514750 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:55AM (#13595423) Homepage Journal
      In this way I found out I was also paying a "recycling" tax on my RECHARGABLE batteries.

      And how is this unreasonable? Do they last forever? Can the materials they're made of be reused once the battery is no longer functional? The question in my mind is, is it the same as the recycling tax on a regular battery.

      A lot of people might be thinking "It should be lower", but the process for making and disposing of rechargable batteries is about as environmentally unfriendly as regular batteries. And if the tax is the same on a per-battery basis, you be saving huge amounts of tax by buying the rechargable ones anyway.

    • Re:Good (Score:2)

      by kraut ( 2788 )
      Even rechargable batteries don't last forever...

  • 85 million kronor (Score:5, Informative)

    by mysqlrocks ( 783488 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:33AM (#13595289) Homepage Journal

    Last year, 85 million kronor in cassette compensation was collected and redistributed by the copyright organisation Copyswede.

    FYI, 85 million kronor is appx. 11 million U.S. dollars.

  • Why can't we let market forces rule here? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by confusion ( 14388 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:33AM (#13595294) Homepage
    Look, if these crazy governments (US included) would stop butting in, the record labels that hold on to their current business models would go out of business, but some other, more creative model would come into being. Hell, one of the big record companies themselves might even be the innovator.

    Jerry
    http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]
    • Because the record labels are paying for the governments to join in by passing the stupid laws.

    • Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:37AM (#13595322) Homepage
      Yeah, as some brilliant person once said, "P2P won't kill the music industry, only the current one."
      • P2P won't kill the music industry, only the current one.

        Practical outcome: It won't kill the music industry, because music's relatively cheap to make. But free sharing of, say, multimillion-dollar movies might smash that industry's kneecaps...

        • Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:07AM (#13595499) Homepage
          Actually something similar is happening in China. Due to the high level of movie piracy it's harder and harder to make traditional and more costly action movies and recoup the costs. Accordingly, they're not being made.

          However, the movie industry still exists in an admittedly different form.

          Here's a good example in our country. In part to cut down on piracy, the movie industry is thinking about releasing DVDs the same time movies are released in the theater. So instead of wasting hours downloading the lastest Hollywood crap you could simply go to Blockbuster and get if for a few bucks or Netflix for less than a buck.

          This change may kill off most theaters. However, the movie industry would still exist.
          • That's a great idea. Movie theatres were nice when everyone had 13 in black and white tvs at home, with mono sound. Now, most people I know have 27+ inch screens, with at least stereo, if not surround sound. They also have DVD players, which offer exceptionaly quality. In about 10 years, the theatres won't have much to offer over the home setup. Not to mention the cost of taking your family to the movie theatre is starting to cost a small fortune. I think that if they start releasing DVDs at the same ti
            • I think its a confluence of events ... I'm sure this has been said before... but as you mentioned home entertainment systems are cheap and good looking ... Movie tickets are between 8 - 10$ in most places (9.75 where I live), movie "food" is rediculous. At one of the theaters here where I live a large coke is $5. So figure, on the low end, 40$ to goto the movies, and that doesn't count having to WAIT IN LINE to: 1 buy tickets ... 2 buy popcorn ... 3 Actually get a decent seat. Then when you get in the mo
          • What's the real loss here? It'll kill theatres, which make most of their profits selling what exactly? ... not... movies. ;) It's that stale popcorn, carbonated sugarry water, and stank nasty hotdogs.

            I haven't been to a theatre in a while, and I used to go once a week for almost a decade. I prefer watching it at home on the couch with a good stereo system ( a few hundred dollars) and an okay tv.

            Some things still should be seen on the biggie screen. But it doesn't have to be everything.

            We could seriously use

          • Re:Why can't we let market forces rule here? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuationNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:48AM (#13595814)
            "This change may kill off most theaters."

            Quite frankly, I am dreaming for the day that movie theaters will become a rarity that will only be enjoyed by true movie fans, instead of a dumping ground for rude children. Charge me $25 per ticket for a nice seat, serve reasonably priced food and absolutely forbid anyone under 21 from entering the building. Sounds elitist? Damn right...but let's face facts, most theaters are crap nowadays because of the annoying kids. I'm not even 30 yet and I'm complaining about it.
            • If it were mathematically possible, I'd agree with you 110%. Movies are no longer fun due to the rudeness of the other patrons who treat theaters like rock concerts.
            • I have read about a few theatres that are doing it different: meals served, large comfy chairs with a table to eat on, cocktails (serving is before the movie). This is basically a take off on the dinner theatre.

              I haven't gone to the theatre in about 10 years, mainly because the screens are too small, the people are too loud, the food is overpriced (its just freaking popcorn and coke, for god's sake...) and all too often, the movie sucks.

              If they would work to improve the EXPERIENCE, then I would gladly go.
    • Lets see:

      We would also pay more for airline tickets (Re: Delta, Northwest, United, ...) because we would have reasonable allocation of flights. Not to mention no flights to little cities that pay for hubs/connector flights to worthless markets. (but it makes sense for the cities, because they would have no transportation otherwise.)

      We would not realy have roads, because they are partially paid for by gas taxes. If you live in Europe, you would have less mass transportation: because most European government

    • "Look, if these crazy governments (US included) would stop butting in, the record labels that hold on to their current business models would go out of business, but some other, more creative model would come into being. Hell, one of the big record companies themselves might even be the innovator."

      Very insigntful, but the record companies don't come in to play here. Copyswede collects and distributes money to artists and performers, not record companies. My guess is that the record companies could not

    • Not as long as politicians, as they are here in the US, are "elected" by corporations. Without these corporations "contributions", they would never have been elected or reelected.

      Anyone who thinks politicians care about people here in the US, need their heads examined.
    • Remember, the laws that create Intellectual "Property" _are_ government butting into the market. Supposedly, for the greater good. I don't see it. I see the system gamed for the enrichment of individuals who have contributed to nothing but the gaming of the system (e.g. Lemuelson, BSA).

      I don't see the good in the government fighting the production of alcohol. I don't see the good in the government fighting a war on abstract nouns, e.g. Poverty, Drugs, or Terror.

  • jens (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrSpiff ( 515611 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:33AM (#13595296) Homepage
    Jens is commonly known as being one of the few public figures in sweden standing up against the swedish equivalence of RIAA/MPAA, Antipiratbyrån ("The Antipiracy Bureau").
    • Well, at least giving that impression has been one of "Jens of Korea's" marketing angles lately. It worked on you! ;)

      Jens is probably worried that people will go elsewhere to buy the exact same players he's selling. When sold without the JoS stickers, the players are already much cheaper, "anti-piracy" taxation or not.

      Remember that Jens Nylander has a rather adaptive view on copyright and piracy issues [realtid.se]. [An article in Swedish daily business magazine Realtid.se on how Jens once ratted out his former employer
    • Well, yeah hes known for using bad rethorics and stupid manners to gain free PR...

  • Interesting, but probably futile.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Willeh ( 768540 ) * <rwillem@xs4all.nl> on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:34AM (#13595299)
    It's a nice gesture, but i doubt it's gonna work. Over where i live (the Netherlands) the national copyright association (we actually have 2 similar ones) is under fire for shady practices with regards to taxes on blanc DVD-R's and so on. What needs to be done is protest the existance of these vague agencies whose working are mostly unnnoticeable (does the money really go to the artists?) at a national level, by openly questioning the existence of said agency.

    It does seem pretty damn unfair that Apple would be exempt, since they don't manufacture their players in Sweden. I'd urge all Swedes to buy their media/ players that are burdened by taxes that would go to this agency abroad like we've been doing (i buy all my blancs in germany, where there are no unfair taxes. Hell, over here the tax is more than the media itself!) for a while now.

    • I guess what ticks me off the most about this is it assumes guilt.
      DVD-Rs can be used for home movies, backing up your data, and Linux distros.
      I have never used my DVD-R drive to copy a movie or a music cd.

      • If you can convince your local copyright assocation of this, you can apply for exemption to the levy. You'd have to burn through alot of data, home movies and other stuff for it to be worthwhile though. Myself, i copy movies like they're going out of style, and refuse to pay the levy by buying abroad. Fuck these leeches.

        Disclaimer: Exemption is possible in my country, and may not be applicable in your country/ jurisdiction.

    • To be precise:

      The Dutch 'stichting thuiskopie' (home copy association) is under firing for selling DVDR's that were seized during actions on fleemarkets etc.

      These DVDRs were imported 'illegaly' i.e. no fees were paid to the recording industries, so the organisation gave the retailers two options: turn them over or be sued. Naturally the retailers complied; then the organisation would re-sell the discs keeping all profits for themselves.

      This seems very much like a clever extortion scheme if you ask me.

  • Bravo that company (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrRay720 ( 874710 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:35AM (#13595310)
    Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong.

    Imagine if the laws the media industry 'buy' were appplied to other products. Knife manufacturers would face life imprisonment (or the death penalty) incase someone buying one of their knives killed someone with it, Ford and Honda executives would be locked up on the off chance that one of their cars was used as a getaway car, and makers of mobile phones would face a free holiday in Gitmo because a nutter could use one of their phones to remotely detonate a bomb.

    You go music industry, I love you and your purchased laws and taxes!!

    • Re:Bravo that company (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:09AM (#13595507) Journal
      Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong.

      This is actually not a piracy levy, but a privacy levy. It's a fee taken to compensate artists from the legal rights you have to make personal copies.

      Here's the deal: Copyswede's Blank Tape Levy [copyswede.se] [english]

      IMHO, that only makes it even more freaky. It's a legal right we have, and they seek compensation for that right, and the gov't blindly think they can do so? I don't understand how they can have legal support to do this. Note this is not about the gov't collecting levies, it's about a commercial organization. They call themselves a "co-operative economic association".

      But regardless the intent, it's ridiculous to put a levy on... blank records... in my opinion. They have no clue what I do with them, which ones I use to backup work on, to send digital photos to my family on, etc. Am I supposed to pay for my own copyright here? Get rid of your hands on my work!

    • Imagine if the laws the media industry 'buy' were appplied to other products. Knife manufacturers would face life imprisonment (or the death penalty) incase someone buying one of their knives killed someone with it, Ford and Honda executives would be locked up on the off chance that one of their cars was used as a getaway car, and makers of mobile phones would face a free holiday in Gitmo because a nutter could use one of their phones to remotely detonate a bomb.

      Imagine? No, I don't need to imagine. It's

    • "Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong."

      Copyswede collects money for artists and perfomers. None goes to record companies. Your take on this is refreshing -- it's usually the record companies that are the bad guys. Slashdotters typically see the artists themselves as generally decent folks. Looks like the tide may be turning.

  • Copied to a different format??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by somethingwicked ( 260651 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:35AM (#13595313)
    compensate copyright owners whose music is copied to a different format for private use

    Copied to a different format huh? So, I have to pay money to do this :

    One-a - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Tvu - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Three-a - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Fuoor - Nutheeng vrung veet me-a Oone-a - Sumetheeng's gut tu geefe-a Tvu - Sumetheeng's gut tu geefe-a Three-a - Sumetheeng's gut tu geefe-a Noo Let zee budeees heet zee fluur Let zee budeees heet zee fluur Let zee budeees heet zee fluur

  • Free mp3's (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:41AM (#13595343) Homepage
    I hope these companies can prove there are enough free mp3's and paid mp3/wma services available that such taxation isn't required.
    Secondly if the CD is protected by the music industry obviously that CD didn't get copied and they aren't entitled to any compensation.

  • Interesting quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smellystudent ( 663516 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:46AM (#13595373)
    A statement from CopySwede: "As the law stands, people have the right to make copies for private use, so the copyright owners should be fairly compensated."

    Isn't that what they pay for when they buy the music?

    Or is he saying that Swedes only pay for the right to have a single copy of the music on the medium supplied, and must not transfer it to any other medium?
    Does copying it in electronic form to stranded copper count? :-)
    • No, he's saying that Swedes have the right to put music on their player whether they bought it or not. This is the system in Canada, too.

      Buying a copy of the CD gets you a good copy that will probably last longer than your homemade one, and gets you the cover art, booklet, etc, but it doesn't affect your right to make copies for personal use.

  • Good for Jens (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bob3141592 ( 225638 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:48AM (#13595381) Homepage
    Making hardware companies pay fees for acts which may or may not be committed by people they cannot control is nothing more than a government subsidy to a private enterprise. The media companies have a reputation for screwing the artist and screwing the public. Now they want to screw other private businesses with a preemptive restraint of trade.

    I sat let's make the media companies pay for all the actual and potential hearing loss that comes from listening to too loud music. That ought to bankrupt them pretty quick. Let's hear their arguments against that! Rediculous as that is, it's exactly what they think they can do to everyone else.

  • Apple DOES pay the personal copy tax... (Score:4, Informative)

    by l0ne ( 915881 ) <millenomi&gmail,com> on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:48AM (#13595385)
    ...in Italy, at the very least. The amount of the tax (out of the total cost of the iPod) is shown in red at the bottom of each iPod price page at the Apple Italy store (http://apple.com/italystore [apple.com]).
    • And, up until the levy was removed for hard drive-based players, Apple paid in Canada as well. About a year ago there was a $30 "price drop" on iPods.
    • Couldn't people in Italy just buy it from another country in Europe (hopefully where they don't have such a levy) and have it shipped to them? Italy is part of the E.U. if I'm not mistaken, doesn't that mean that there's no tariff if you're getting it just for personal use (and not for resale)?

      I knew some people in Canada who were ordering iPods from the U.S. back when they still had their own ridiculous surcharge, seems it ought to be even easier to do in the E.U.

  • Upgrade Yourself (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:48AM (#13595386) Homepage Journal
    When I transfer music I legitimately own to another format for my continued personal use, that's a fair use of my copy. Otherwise all the thieving recording industry need do to extort another round of profits from me is discontinue the old player, the old format. Formats are now so much more often new software, therefore cheaper to roll out (and less of a loss in discarding) than the old hardware formats. So the record industry wants to force upgrades of the same content. How many times must I pay to continue to listen to _Dark Side of the Moon_? That's why they're trying to stop us from doing it ourselves. It's certainly cheaper and even easier for them than producing some new content that I'll like.
  • Yes, the Swedish extra tax for storage is stupid. check
    Yes, copyswede is a lobbyist organisation. check
    Yes, the law is horrible.

    But opposing the law on the grounds of "it's a stupid law" isn't the very best of moves. It gives a very bad impression of the company, that somehow the law does not apply to jens company. At least, here in Sweden, that sort of thing is frowned upon.

    Jens is only trying to attract customers by using populist tactics. He tried to file a company called Superhero Jens AB, but the n

    • Re:Stupid laws still apply, Jens (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:56AM (#13595430)
      What they are doing, provided they are willing to suck up and deal with the damages under the law, is the essence of civil disobedience.

    • Re:Stupid laws still apply, Jens (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot AT monkelectric DOT com> on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:02AM (#13595945)
      "Yes...You... The retard in the back with the stupid question!?"

      Opposing "stupid" law is the very essence of democracy (yes i know sweden only barely resembles a democracy). Yes they are getting publicity. Yes they are doing the public good. They probably are also trying to eliminate the single most costly component of their products. A tax which by any stretch of imagination is unjust.

  • God is angry (Score:4, Funny)

    by black_meow ( 908246 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:51AM (#13595401)
    I am just waiting to see God appear on my doorstep with a receipt book in his hand, taxing me for using my penis for other than what he though it should be for.

  • Jens fights for us! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hackie_Chan ( 678203 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @08:55AM (#13595427)
    Jens is the founder of the company Jens of Sweden [jensofsweden.se], a company that mainly imports and resells Asian mp3/music players under their own brand. It's a business that has made Jens a millionaire in a really short time. I consider their products to be so-so, but a lot of my friends own one. I've also heard that he's quote "an ass" in real life, but nevertheless he's a pretty smart one.

    A couple of months ago in Sweden there was a large public debate regarding copyrights and illegal downloading over the internet because the government was was setting in the motion of banning it "once and for all". And that's when I got respect for Jens: Because of his popular company and respect in the business world, he got a lot of media attention. He used it to criticize the current music industry, telling them to push and advance their business instead of trying to patch up a stone age one. I remember a debate on public television where it was Jens with a couple of other pro-Internet people versus a bunch industry henchmen. It was some exciting television!

    Regardless of what you think of him as person, he's been a very important figure in this country, and he's fighting on our side. Too bad for example there isn't a "Jens of the United States" that can do the same for the Americans.
    • Does "Jens of Sweden" hang out with Tom of Finland [eroticarts.com]? They're right next door!

    • We gots one (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:18AM (#13595579)
      Regardless of what you think of him as person, he's been a very important figure in this country, and he's fighting on our side. Too bad for example there isn't a "Jens of the United States" that can do the same for the Americans.

      We have Patricia Santangelo, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/22 10219&from=rss [slashdot.org], the mom standing up to the RIAA. We don't have ane enforced tax on CD media or iPods that I know of. This is one of the examples where our Legiscritters seem to have given away a bit less of our rights than those of some other countries.

      The RIAA may be suing people who have allegedly broken the law - or whose computers were used to break the law - but to my knowledge, there's no "reimbursement" tax on the bulk of law-abiding citizens.

      Now, how was that Grokster case going again...doh!

  • hypothetical question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yEvb0 ( 904248 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:02AM (#13595472)
    If I buy a CD, and it becomes lost or damaged before I can make a copy, does it constitute a fair use for me to copy the same disc from my friend, or download the same songs to replace the ones that I paid for? Thoughts?

    • Re:hypothetical question (Score:5, Funny)

      by JadeNB ( 784349 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:16AM (#13595567) Homepage
      If I buy a CD, and it becomes lost or damaged before I can make a copy, does it constitute a fair use for me to copy the same disc from my friend, or download the same songs to replace the ones that I paid for? Thoughts?
      Two illegal activities in one post!

      1. Inciting illegal music copying via hypothetical questions.
      2. Inciting thought.

    • Sounds just fine to me. You never bought a CD, you bought the right to own and listen to the music. So if the CD is damaged your right is not.
      • That's where people like the RIAA want it both ways.

        On the one hand, they say you haven't bought the media you've only bought the rights to play it (so can't do anything you like with it eg. Play a DVD under Linux).

        On the other hand if you lose the media you lose the right to listen to it any must pay again.

    • It depends where you live. I think in the USA such copying is illegal, but in Canada it's fine. In Canada it is irrelevant whether you bought a copy or not, you're allowed to make a copy for personal use. In the USA you're allowed to make backups, but you didn't, so you lose.

  • You cannot tax illegal activity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:06AM (#13595497) Homepage
    You just can't say it more clearly than that.

    If the activity is legal, there can be taxes imposed. One might argue "this isn't a tax." Okay, so technically, it's not, but it is in many respects. Further, somewhere along the line is an assumption of unlawful infringement by the users sponsored by the makers of media players. This 'legal' assumtion circumvents the free-world's notion of due process under law.

    I have been an opponent of preemptive copyright infringement compensation since I first heard of it. It flies in the face of presumed innocence and due process that we, the people of the free democratic societies have always expected. The only "approriate" way for this to be legally established is for the **AA's to lawfully SUE all consumers in every country in a tremendous class-action suit against infringement activities. I'd love to see them try that too. They'd loose and people would more directly hate them for it.

    The biggest problem with all of this is that the public at large is still unaware of how this affects them. So as long as the costs to consumers are hidden (by charging the media and hardware makers) consumers will pay the price on the label and move along as if nothing wrong has occured.

    • Re:You cannot tax illegal activity (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bob3141592 ( 225638 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:12AM (#13595534) Homepage
      IANAL, but I thought you certainly could tax illegal activity. Isn't that what they got Al Capone for, tax evasion on the income from his illegal activities?
    • I don't know the Swedish law, but it sounds like the Canadian one. Unlike the US law, it is perfectly legal to make copies of copyrighted music for personal use. This isn't a tax on illegal activity, it's a payment for a collective license.

      Obviously it's not perfectly fair: there are lots of people who use their MP3 players to make backups of their own files, and they shouldn't pay the tax. (Errr, sorry, that's the CDROM argument. What is the argument that someone should be allowed to make free copies

  • The actual law (Score:5, Informative)

    by bwz ( 13374 ) <erik@@@elmgren...org> on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:08AM (#13595503) Homepage
    So people can discuss with some more information, the actual law is "Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk" available (in Swedish, sorry 'bout that, I'll try to translate the relevant portion as a reply to this) here [riksdagen.se]. The relevant paragraph is chapter 1, 26 k .

  • Ogg? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by MoogMan ( 442253 )
    So why don't they create an OGG player instead? :-P
  • A bit unrelated perhaps, but i'm just wondering something here. I live in Holland and i see *lots* of mp3 players being offered for free or almost free nowadays. I got one when i got a course, my gf got one with a magazine, and so on. Are all these players also included in the copyright fee? Because if they give them away like candy, well ... seems to me that they actually don't need that fee.

  • Interesting slight of hand. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Greger47 ( 516305 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:40AM (#13595759)
    I remeber the debate when the levy was introduced. Since it wasn't really illegal to copy music privatly from friends the levy was introduced on blank casette tapes to compensate the music industry. As technology progressed more formats where included, like CD-ROMs, DVD-Rs, and MP3 players. Even hard drives have been suggested by the music industry!

    Nowdays we have stricter copyright laws and even coping between friends is strictly forbidden, and suddenly the levy is described as beeing compensation for me copying the music I already own to a different medium.

    It seems someone want's to keep the cake and eat it to...

    /greger

  • Do PDAs also need to pay this tax? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A stupid tax like this could increase the price of *ANY* device capable of playing digital audio files, so lets start:
    - PDA (Audio Jack connector: if its mono pay only half tax:)
    - Mobile phones (almost any recent model can play audio files)
    - Laptop (wow this one have big hard disk, does it mean increased taxing?)
    - Desktop (did anyone hear a computer playing music?)
    - Servers (yep we all know Microsoft Servers operating systems come preloaded with Windows Media Player:) Humm.. a 2TB storage server can cost mo

  • Bad. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @12:04PM (#13596974) Homepage
    This is bad.

    Ten bucks says that the US companies are lobbying to jack up the fine (its not a tax, its a fine) or add another one.

    I can see that you're buying a car. Now, we've just added this drugrunning and speeding fines, because you Americans like to do those. That'll be $5000 extra, please. Oh, I know..you probably don't run drugs or speed much, but you MIGHT, so we have to fine you.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close