CDR: Germans to tax PCs for Lars
Germany Reportedly Plans 'Internet Tax' BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany is planning to slap new levies on computer, telecommunications and Internet products to ensure that authors are properly rewarded for the use of their work, a newspaper said Wednesday. The Berliner Zeitung said proposals had been drafted requiring manufacturers of goods from computers to printers, modems, compact disc ``burners'' and other devices to pay royalty fees that would then be forwarded to music and film companies. Officials at the Justice Ministry, which it said was behind the move, were not immediately available for comment. The new tax would particularly intend to ensure that the authors of cultural products available on the Internet were properly rewarded. Similar levies already exist in Germany on devices whose main function is that of copying, such as scanners, photocopiers and fax machines. Depending on the power of the machine involved, the taxes range from $30-$275. The levies are paid by manufacturers to firms that specialize in collecting royalties on so-called ``intellectual property.'' They then pass these fees on to clients such as authors, music, film or software companies. Hardware companies say extending the taxes to computers and telecom equipment like modems could make them up to 30 percent more expensive. Because the taxes are only payable when the products are bought in Germany, there have been warnings they could lead hi-tech firms to flee the country and sell through mail order and other channels from abroad.
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:27:53AM -0400, David Honig wrote:
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany is planning to slap new levies on computer, telecommunications and Internet products to ensure that authors are properly rewarded for the use of their work, a newspaper said Wednesday.
Is this really a bad thing? Music is becomming a public service. When author cannot control their works (as is happening now) the works basically become a public service - and the way public services are funded is by govt taxes. If they stop trying (and failing) to control content and just use this - well it's not perfect - but it's better than a DMCA/UCITA world. My worry is that they distribute this money only to the big record companies and screw the 'real musicians' AGL -- I never let my schooling get in the way of my education.
At 1:54 PM -0400 9/6/00, Adam Langley wrote:
--kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:27:53AM -0400, David Honig wrote:
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany is planning to slap new levies on computer, telecommunications and Internet products to ensure that authors are properly rewarded for the use of their work, a newspaper said Wednesday.
Is this really a bad thing? Music is becomming a public service. When author cannot control their works (as is happening now) the works basically become a public service - and the way public services are funded is by govt taxes.= If they stop trying (and failing) to control content and just use this - well it's not perfect - but it's better than a DMCA/UCITA world.
My worry is that they distribute this money only to the big record companies and screw the 'real musicians'
You're missing a more important point: there is no correlation between who is using the service or product and who is paying the tax. Taxing a computer used for video game playing, for example, when absolutely no "piracy" is happening from that computer. An overly wide net. Governments like this sort of thing, however. Tax everyone, then spend the revenues as they wish. Might as well tax paper products, pens, pencils, and typewriters...because sometimes these are used to copy the works of others. But, as I said, the deeper issue is the "disconnect" between the tax and the allegedly "improper use" of some service. The U.S. have done this many times, of course. In particular, the Home Recording Act of 1991, or thereabouts, which slapped a tax on blank tapes and let home recording folks copy as much as they wanted (so long as they don't sell the tapes). (A friend of mine has over 4500 CDs copied digitally onto DAT and CD-R. I'm just a piker, having only about 500 CDs copied onto DAT and CD-R. Why _buy_ a CD when our libraries have tens of thousands of CDs available for borrowing and copying?) And from a practical standpoint, this bad tax (bad in the decorrelation, nonmarket sense) also leads us in the wrong direction. Instead of the recording companies figuring out technological and market solutions, they are relying on "men with guns" to collect taxes and, hopefully, with enough lobbyists in Bonn and Berne and D.C., to dribble some of these taxes back to the recording companies. Feh. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:56 PM 9/6/00 -0400, Tim wrote:
The U.S. have done this many times, of course. In particular, the Home Recording Act of 1991, or thereabouts, which slapped a tax on blank tapes and let home recording folks copy as much as they wanted (so long as they don't sell the tapes). (A friend of mine has over 4500 CDs copied digitally onto DAT and CD-R. I'm just a piker, having only about 500 CDs copied onto DAT and CD-R. Why _buy_ a CD when our libraries have tens of thousands of CDs available for borrowing and copying?)
Interesting to note that the same type tax applies to "music CD-R" blanks (of the type required by the Phillips-Magnavox style music CD burners, which won't burn onto a data blank). Last I looked, such blanks were still >$1.00, where data CD-R blanks are down to ~$0.39. And, of course, computer-based burners have no problem burning audio onto a data CD-R.
And from a practical standpoint, this bad tax (bad in the decorrelation, nonmarket sense) also leads us in the wrong direction. Instead of the recording companies figuring out technological and market solutions, they are relying on "men with guns" to collect taxes and, hopefully, with enough lobbyists in Bonn and Berne and D.C., to dribble some of these taxes back to the recording companies.
Where they doubtless stay. It's pretty well known how little artists make from their corp-owned recorded works. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] sc4tal19@idt.net DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey@scytale.com I charge to process unsolicited commercial email -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQEVAwUBOba3JmCl9Uka85MxAQEAywf/XMMC0nvBoIzJ1ulRanBATG8S75tlHbFp wW1D93v8UqRdGsi5kRvrKfB5dfU/NIQg8hWxGnw0KhsgEtNbCzJUkdaIbAfDL9vm FkWQEChe3KHLSzc+OhFwq632heuTKSkAyCmt9qNg8S3BeLs/BXgVywZZLmEDeJB9 JfmevrxALZ+917v/GteD1jusFOZM8PonKfYtuxhEwW3hGXOo2AmQm1Hj/drZjXkS bD1EEN0opWkoq0RqXOqDeDVZHDA6owkUiPXCULabznLqTMpbFt43d3Gcrk0zhaOH VQMbzvKZ1z4bFt+6CZqpZVLmZiDcVL2e9fwCCFkFlQNo1uPPhh0AfA== =eWI3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim May wrote:
You're missing a more important point: there is no correlation between who is using the service or product and who is paying the tax.
Taxing a computer used for video game playing, for example, when absolutely no "piracy" is happening from that computer. An overly wide net.
Governments like this sort of thing, however. Tax everyone, then spend the revenues as they wish.
not quite right. it is NOT the government that collects, and this is not a tax. there's a "non-profit" organisation called GEMA that collects and re-distributes these things. the system has been the subject of criticism often, but works surprisingly well. that might be because the article doesn't mention the OTHER side of it. for example, paying a fixed sum to GEMA enables you to play music in public (say, as a shop owner in your shop) without having to deal with the individual artists and labels for "broadcasting rights". it greatly simplifies things for small shops.
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Tom Vogt wrote:
Tim May wrote:
Governments like this sort of thing, however. Tax everyone, then spend the revenues as they wish.
not quite right. it is NOT the government that collects, and this is not a tax. there's a "non-profit" organisation called GEMA that collects and re-distributes these things.
the system has been the subject of criticism often, but works surprisingly well. that might be because the article doesn't mention the OTHER side of it. for example, paying a fixed sum to GEMA enables you to play music in public (say, as a shop owner in your shop) without having to deal with the individual artists and labels for "broadcasting rights". it greatly simplifies things for small shops.
Thats no diffferent than BMI or ASCAP here in the states. The only difference is that here that is a completely private transaction. No government involvement or interference necessary or desired. Having the government make it a tax is a little too much like fascism. Correction, its exactly like fascism. Now that the US Federal government wouldn't try it. jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Jim:
Having the government make it a tax is a little too much like fascism. Correction, its exactly like fascism.
Now that the US Federal government wouldn't try it.
And the English say Americans don't understand sarcasm or irony. That *was* sarcasm, right? (btw, I'm stealing your .sig line). -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "They can attempt to outlaw weapons but they can't outlaw the Platonic Ideal of a weapon and modern technology makes it absolutely trivial to convert a Platonic Ideal of a weapon into an actual weapon whenever one desires."
At 06:15 AM 9/7/00 -0400, Tom Vogt wrote:
not quite right. it is NOT the government that collects, and this is not a tax. there's a "non-profit" organisation called GEMA that collects and re-distributes these things.
So if you don't pay GEMA who *are* those folks with the guns?
David Honig wrote:
not quite right. it is NOT the government that collects, and this is not a tax. there's a "non-profit" organisation called GEMA that collects and re-distributes these things.
So if you don't pay GEMA who *are* those folks with the guns?
GEMA will most likely sue you. but since GEMA isn't the government, that's a civil case.
At 05:10 AM 9/8/00 -0400, Tom Vogt wrote:
David Honig wrote:
not quite right. it is NOT the government that collects, and this is not a tax. there's a "non-profit" organisation called GEMA that collects and re-distributes these things.
So if you don't pay GEMA who *are* those folks with the guns?
GEMA will most likely sue you. but since GEMA isn't the government, that's a civil case.
The "right" of GEMA to sue is enforced by folks claiming to be from your "State" who carry guns, no? A level of indirection doesn't change anything.
David Honig wrote:
So if you don't pay GEMA who *are* those folks with the guns?
GEMA will most likely sue you. but since GEMA isn't the government, that's a civil case.
The "right" of GEMA to sue is enforced by folks claiming to be from your "State" who carry guns, no?
A level of indirection doesn't change anything.
on the ideological level, no. on the practical level - a lot. for example, you don't go to jail for not paying GEMA.
At 07:09 PM 9/8/00 +0200, Tom Vogt wrote:
David Honig wrote:
The "right" of GEMA to sue is enforced by folks claiming to be from your "State" who carry guns, no?
A level of indirection doesn't change anything.
on the ideological level, no. on the practical level - a lot. for example, you don't go to jail for not paying GEMA.
Then why do people pay? Ultimately law is backed by violence. Having, say, your restaurant license revoked by a bureaucrat in an agency created by a committe empowered by elected officials does not change the fact that Folks With Guns will haul you and your property away if you operate without their permission. You "don't go to jail for not paying GEMA" but you do go to jail for not paying fines for not paying GEMA, not showing up in court, etc. Don't pretend.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, David Honig wrote:
Ultimately law is backed by violence.
And therefore it is bad....yadda, yadda, yadda Bullshit. That is such a general statement as to be worthless. The 'law' stems from the individual right to self-defence. Law is backed by violence because that is what is is about. To then try to portray this as the stem of human abuse of same is simply abusive to the reader. People do not do violence on others simply because laws exists. It is not unreasonable, to any reasonable person that is, to expect a certain percentage of persons in 'the law' to abuse it. Where else is the best place to be after all? As usual, the devil is in the details. It isn't 'the law' that is the problem, but rather how as people we allows it to be abused. Your thesis is self-referential, inconsequential, and still born. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 06:15 AM 9/7/00 -0400, Tom Vogt wrote:
Tim May wrote:
You're missing a more important point: there is no correlation between who is using the service or product and who is paying the tax.
Taxing a computer used for video game playing, for example, when absolutely no "piracy" is happening from that computer. An overly wide net.
Governments like this sort of thing, however. Tax everyone, then spend the revenues as they wish.
not quite right. it is NOT the government that collects, and this is not a tax. there's a "non-profit" organisation called GEMA that collects and re-distributes these things.
the system has been the subject of criticism often, but works surprisingly well. that might be because the article doesn't mention the OTHER side of it. for example, paying a fixed sum to GEMA enables you to play music in public (say, as a shop owner in your shop) without having to deal with the individual artists and labels for "broadcasting rights". it greatly simplifies things for small shops.
So does the proposed law require companies to pay GEMA if they make or sell anything in this category? If they don't pay, what happens? Lawsuit? Criminal prosecution? I don't expect that US newspaper reporting gets the details precisely correct. In the US, there are a couple of organizations, I think ASCAP and BMI, (American Society of Composers, Artists, and Performers) that manage the intellectual property rights for most musicians. If you play music on the radio or do other public performances, you have to pay them their standard rates. It's not mandatory - there are non-ASCAP musicians, and radio stations (particularly religious talk/music stations) that don't participate, but if you play music from their members on the radio without a license from them, they'll sue for copyright infringement. (The main reason religious radio stations often don't use ASCAP is that they're a niche market, but the payments to ASCAP cover the whole market and are priced high enough that stations that don't play new commercial music don't want to pay that much. Of course, some of them just don't like sex, drugs, and rock&roll :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Bill Stewart wrote:
So does the proposed law require companies to pay GEMA if they make or sell anything in this category?
I'm afraid that is what is being proposed. of course, similiar stuff has been proposed for a long time. the IP industry is greedy, as we all know. and since IP is an artificial right, created by law (copyright, among others), they need laws if they want to move into new areas of business or extend their old ones. other people innovate to grow, IP corporations buy new laws.
If they don't pay, what happens? Lawsuit? Criminal prosecution?
lawsuit, civil, most likely.
In the US, there are a couple of organizations, I think ASCAP and BMI, (American Society of Composers, Artists, and Performers) that manage the intellectual property rights for most musicians. If you play music on the radio or do other public performances, you have to pay them their standard rates. It's not mandatory - there are non-ASCAP musicians, and radio stations (particularly religious talk/music stations) that don't participate, but if you play music from their members on the radio without a license from them, they'll sue for copyright infringement.
that's pretty much the same situation, I guess.
David Honig wrote:
on the ideological level, no. on the practical level - a lot. for example, you don't go to jail for not paying GEMA.
Then why do people pay?
because you can't "opt out" - blank tapes just cost $x - GEMA included. you can't buy any without. shop owners and others pay because they have much better things to do then spend their money on a lawsuit with no chance of winning.
Ultimately law is backed by violence.
and customs. (not the border kind) most people are simply used to following the law.
participants (9)
-
Adam Langley -
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Jim Burnes -
Jim Choate -
petro -
Roy M. Silvernail -
Tim May -
Tom Vogt